I wonder if it turns out that Brown attacked the officer and busted him up, the protestors will go "damn", we were wrong, and do a show of support for Wilson.
Probably none of them talked to the clerk that got pushed around and said it was inexecusable that he had to put up with such treatment from someone so much bigger than him.
Honestly, I'm not sure good shoot or bad shoot makes much of a difference to the underlying issues. The blacks are very under represented in that police force and (right or wrong) feel as if they are not treated fairly, the shooting was just a very visible symptom to them.
Good shoot/bad shoot has no bearing on another issue, perceived over reaction by a highly militarized police force.
If by 'good' you mean outlining perfectly what's wrong with the police attitude, then yes.
"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
If by 'good' you mean outlining perfectly what's wrong with the police attitude, then yes.
"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
Its accurate. Here's what you do do. You don't raise your voice. You don't raise your hands. You don't consent to a search without the advice of your attorney. You don't resist the search but you continue to verbally note you are not consenting to any search without the advice of your attorney. You don't consent to even talk without the advice of your attorney.
Oh wait he actually says it:
Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves. I also believe every cop should use a body camera to record interactions with the community at all times. Every police car should have a video recorder. (This will prevent a situation like Mike Brown’s shooting, about which conflicting and self-serving statements allow people to believe what they want.) And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion). Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave. Unless the officer has a legal basis to stop and search you, he or she must let you go. Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.
Its a good article and a very accurate wrong. Words of wisdom. Forwarding to The Boy.
If by 'good' you mean outlining perfectly what's wrong with the police attitude, then yes.
"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
That seems to be some selective quoting to me. What he seems to be saying, from reading the whole thing, is both sides should be polite, calm and respect each other. One side not doing this is no excuse for the other side to not do this, but if you are aggressive towards the police you do risk them taking action to stop you. You can read the quote two ways. You can read it as an angry officer saying "Do what I say" or an officer saying "Don't abuse me".
....Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.
Ha!
See, this is the problem.
If the police do it right, and I do it right, I get off ok.
If the police do it right, and I do it wrong, I go to jail, get hurt. my own fault.
If the police do it wrong and I do it wrong, I go to jail/get shot/am now a fugitive.
If the police do it wrong and I do it right, I may get beat/go to jail and odds are nothing happens to the police officer.
Accountability needs to happen. The police need to stop protecting their own from serving time for crimes committed by the police.
This sort of information should have been made available much earlier in this whole sorry series of events.
Incorrect.
Police investigating 101 is to not shout out the facts of this case while interviewing witnesses.
Witnesses give lots of subjective testimony. Facts are objective.
Releasing known facts, especially facts that are not going to change based on witness testimony, is not going to affect the investigation.
Saying much earlier that "there was a struggle, the officer suffered an orbital fracture, and Brown was shot and killed" is not going to affect the witness testimony because no matter what witnesses say the officer sustained an orbital fracture and Brown was hit by bullets.
Saying "we can't release information yet because we don't want to taint witness testimony" doesn't make much sense because the fracture is not going to go away and Brown won't magically come back to life based on testimony.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Kansas City man is now front and center in the controversial shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. Shawn Parcells owns a company that provides autopsy services, and some in the forensic community are taking issue with his involvement in this or any other case.
Parcells owns National Forensic Autopsy and Recovery Services. He says lawyers for the family of Michael Brown contacted him because of his expertise in gunshot wounds.
“I am a forensic pathologist assistant and medical investigator,” Parcells told FOX 4’s Shannon O’Brien.
However, that’s something of a dubious title according to forensic pathologist Dr. Erik Mitchell.
“That is a degree that does not exist in my knowledge, except in the mind of Shawn Parcells,” Dr. Mitchell said.
Dr. Mitchell takes issue with Parcells’ title.
“You cannot claim the title, because it is a formal, licensable position. You can assist somebody; in this way I can say, for instance, I have paid my taxes, so I am an assistant President of the United States,” Dr. Mitchell said.
Parcells admits he has no certification as a pathology assistant, but says his qualification comes from experience.
“I worked there as a forensic assistant for about a year. And if I remember correctly that was 2005 to 2006. That was under Dr. Young,” Parcells said.
That’s Dr. Thomas Young, the former Jackson County Medical Examiner.
“And that’s honestly where I gained a lot of my experience,” Parcells said.
Parcells says his training began in 1997 when he interned with Dr. Young, until he was hired in the mid-2000’s.
Dr. Young responded with this statement:
“Shawn hung out at the Jackson County Medical Examiner’s office but was not trained by me.”…. “He has been representing himself in a way that is not appropriate by giving forensic pathology opinions when he is not qualified to do so.”
“He has none of the qualifications that are required. He has experience as a morgue technician, somebody who would move bodies around, clean up after an autopsy,” Dr. Mitchell said.
Parcells says he has detractors because of a competitive system.
“A lot of this was started because I have competitors who I was taking business from. And the coroners, also, is a very political system. It’s buddy-buddy, who’s your buddy?” Parcells said.
Dr. Mitchell doesn’t agree.
“Jealousy has nothing to do with the issue with Parcells. Parcells is practicing medicine without a license,” he said.
Parcells says he and Dr. Baden are offering their services for free to the Brown family. Only their travel and related expenses are being paid for.
Jeez...
So if the official report comes out from the STLPD, a licenced MD, that deviates from Parcells' report... whoa momma.
This sort of information should have been made available much earlier in this whole sorry series of events.
Incorrect.
Police investigating 101 is to not shout out the facts of this case while interviewing witnesses.
Witnesses give lots of subjective testimony. Facts are objective.
Releasing known facts, especially facts that are not going to change based on witness testimony, is not going to affect the investigation.
Saying much earlier that "there was a struggle, the officer suffered an orbital fracture, and Brown was shot and killed" is not going to affect the witness testimony because no matter what witnesses say the officer sustained an orbital fracture and Brown was hit by bullets.
Saying "we can't release information yet because we don't want to taint witness testimony" doesn't make much sense because the fracture is not going to go away and Brown won't magically come back to life based on testimony.
Ever heard of the SOP of "we don't comment on an active investigation"?
Even though that SOP is being shredded to thy kingdom come...
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon drew criticism from his own Lt. Governor Tuesday when he said “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” in the shooting death of black 18-year-old Michael Brown by white police Officer Darren Wilson in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson.
Nixon made the comment in a videotaped statement in which he said he would not remove St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch from the case despite the demands of some black leaders who believe that McCulloch’s deep family ties to law enforcement would affect his impartiality. McCullouch’s father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked for the St. Louis Police Department, and his father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect.
In his statement, Nixon cited what he called the “well-established process” by which prosecutors can recuse themselves from pending investigations to make way for a special prosecutor. Departing from that process, Nixon said in a statement, “could unnecessarily inject legal uncertainty into this matter and potentially jeopardize the prosecution.”
“We have a responsibility,” Nixon said, “to come together, and do everything we can to achieve justice for [Brown's] family.” Nixon added that McCulloch and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder had an obligation “to achieve justice in the shooting death of Michael Brown must be carried out thoroughly, promptly, and correctly.”
“It’s really heartbreaking to see a man elected to an office that high in our state government … come out with a statement like that, that does prejudge the case,” Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder told Fox News’ Shepard Smith late Tuesday. “It would be wrong for a prosecutor to say what the governor has said here tonight and it’s wrong for the governor of Missouri to have said it.”
Talk about tainting the potential jury pool... if the officer get convicted, the defense attorney can play this at the appeals.
TL;DR: Nixon wants justice for Michael Brown. But, apparently the officer isn’t entitled to this justice? Nixon basically said to the officer... get under the bus.
Justice for the family can also be achieved by getting a not-guilty verdict, or not even going to trial, after a non-biased transparent investigation that removes any and all appearances of having the blue shield protect the officer.
A decision not to charge after a secret grand jury, or a not-guilty verdict based on the prosecution by a pro-cop DA who gives the appearance that he wasn't really interested in a guilty verdict from the beginning isn't justice for the family.
A not-guilty verdict based on an transparent investigation, a transparent trial, and by a prosecutor who has no bone in the fight and who is running a case based on facts and without previous baggage would be justice because it's a verdict based on facts and not tainted.
d-usa wrote: Justice for the family can also be achieved by getting a not-guilty verdict, or not even going to trial, after a non-biased transparent investigation that removes any and all appearances of having the blue shield protect the officer.
A decision not to charge after a secret grand jury, or a not-guilty verdict based on the prosecution by a pro-cop DA who gives the appearance that he wasn't really interested in a guilty verdict from the beginning isn't justice for the family.
Yeah, about that "pro-cop DA" meme going around. You might wanna re-think dude...
FWIW... that DA was elected 3 times to his current post.
Wow... I can see where this is going to end...
A not-guilty verdict based on an transparent investigation, a transparent trial, and by a prosecutor who has no bone in the fight and who is running a case based on facts and without previous baggage would be justice because it's a verdict based on facts and not tainted.
d-usa wrote: Justice for the family can also be achieved by getting a not-guilty verdict, or not even going to trial, after a non-biased transparent investigation that removes any and all appearances of having the blue shield protect the officer.
A decision not to charge after a secret grand jury, or a not-guilty verdict based on the prosecution by a pro-cop DA who gives the appearance that he wasn't really interested in a guilty verdict from the beginning isn't justice for the family.
Yeah, about that "pro-cop DA" meme going around. You might wanna re-think dude...
FWIW... that DA was elected 3 times to his current post..
Completely irrelevant.
Look at your own history. There are facts, and then there is the whole "this is how I feel about things, facts be damned" factor.
If the entire community already 'knows' that this DA will not present an impartial case then the verdict is tainted before the trial even begins. Remove the appearance of the blue shield, and you are at a much better starting point.
If the entire community already 'knows' that this DA will not present an impartial case then the verdict is tainted before the trial even begins. Remove the appearance of the blue shield, and you are at a much better starting point.
You mean, Nixon not appointing a special prosecuter?
He hasn't yet.
But, when a "community already 'knows' that this DA will not present an impartial case"? Dude... THAT'S the fething "this is how I feel about things, facts be damned" factor.
You're assuming there is sufficient evidence to warrant charging for...anything.
You can only have a trial if there is sufficient evidence to support the charges to a certain minimum standard. Else it will be poured out by the judge.
No trial would be held in that town. A defense attorney would have excellent grounds now to move it to a different jurisdiction.
If the entire community already 'knows' that this DA will not present an impartial case then the verdict is tainted before the trial even begins. Remove the appearance of the blue shield, and you are at a much better starting point.
Do you really think they will accept anyone who is not hugely biased against the cop? And changing the process will just be taken as admission that there is a problem.
Remember, you saw it and heard it here first. We have heard (from a VERY connected national media source) that Ferguson officer Darren Wilson will be cleared in the shooting of Michael Brown. The key: Dorian Johnson has now admitted that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun. OFFICER WILSON WILL NOT BE CHARGED! This is scary. When this news is made official, we all have reason to be concerned about the reaction.
Uh... I didn't hear it on the air wave... but, KFNS is generally pretty good about their news cast.
If the entire community already 'knows' that this DA will not present an impartial case then the verdict is tainted before the trial even begins. Remove the appearance of the blue shield, and you are at a much better starting point.
Do you really think they will accept anyone who is not hugely biased against the cop? And changing the process will just be taken as admission that there is a problem.
What about someone not connected to the case? Switch the DA from another state. I mean we can switch juries, I am pretty sure they can switch DA's
CptJake wrote: Honestly, I'm not sure good shoot or bad shoot makes much of a difference to the underlying issues.
I've tried really hard to keep an open mind on all sides of this so far since there is so little concrete info. If that news report is true - that he tried to grab the gun, and ultimately it turns out that a guy who should have gotten shot, got shot, and then people riot anyway, it's going to really chip away at what remaining faith I have in humanity.
Remember, you saw it and heard it here first. We have heard (from a VERY connected national media source) that Ferguson officer Darren Wilson will be cleared in the shooting of Michael Brown. The key: Dorian Johnson has now admitted that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun. OFFICER WILSON WILL NOT BE CHARGED! This is scary. When this news is made official, we all have reason to be concerned about the reaction.
Uh... I didn't hear it on the air wave... but, KFNS is generally pretty good about their news cast.
We'll know soon enough...
Now we need to figure out if the kid is lying now under pressure of being imprisoned, and how they came up with this story. Its really going to be hard and there needs to be a more thorough investigation other than an eye witness testimony.
CptJake wrote: Honestly, I'm not sure good shoot or bad shoot makes much of a difference to the underlying issues.
I've tried really hard to keep an open mind on all sides of this so far since there is so little concrete info. If that news report is true - that he tried to grab the gun, and ultimately it turns out that a guy who should have gotten shot, got shot, and then people riot anyway, it's going to really chip away at what remaining faith I have in humanity.
There are a few police cases where the officers just raise their gun. I mean if you got a gun pointed at you by a Gangbanger/idiot/moron/killer/mugger/thief, you would steal that gun away, its instinct. The question is this, how far was the cop from the current victim? If he was far too close that is the officer's fault, if he was farther away, then the victim is at fault
As it is currently anyone associated with fegurson police force are not really going to be turstworthy in terms of the evidence they bring up. That may seem like me being biased, but.... I would not trust the department that has been so involved and has escalated the situation to what it CURRENTLY is. With its militarization, and not following police procedure such as wearing a police badge, and being respectful to the members of the community.
Now There are certain things they can do to make me believe what actually happened, 1 Evidence from the scene, 2 more than one eye witness testimony. You Do not base your entire case on one testimony. That brings into question evidential bias and police interrogation tactics are trying to bring out a confession. Confessions are not always a 100% fact.
There was a case a few years ago. Where the police brutually made this 14 year old confess to killing and raping his sister. Which Case I do not remember but it turned out it was actually a serial rapist who had committed the crime. Meaning the police had wrongfully imprisoned a 14 year old.
Frazzled wrote: You're assuming there is sufficient evidence to warrant charging for...anything.
Which I covered under "transparent grand jury process".
But hey, let's not read what I write.
I am not seeing a grand jury noted here. I'm seeing straight to trial.
A not-guilty verdict based on an transparent investigation, a transparent trial, and by a prosecutor who has no bone in the fight and who is running a case based on facts and without previous baggage would be justice because it's a verdict based on facts and not tainted.
So are they going to keep them on or turn them off is the question.
Police really don't like getting recorded. (Chicago person here talking)
In a just world, there are no controls that allow the police to turn off the camera, and disabling it would be a job-losing tampering with evidence felony.
So are they going to keep them on or turn them off is the question.
Police really don't like getting recorded. (Chicago person here talking)
In a just world, there are no controls that allow the police to turn off the camera, and disabling it would be a job-losing tampering with evidence felony.
If only. IF ONLY
I mean they have watches that can tell you your heart beat and how long you have turned it off. Yet they don't have that. Interesting.
So are they going to keep them on or turn them off is the question.
Police really don't like getting recorded. (Chicago person here talking)
In a just world, there are no controls that allow the police to turn off the camera, and disabling it would be a job-losing tampering with evidence felony.
So are they going to keep them on or turn them off is the question.
Police really don't like getting recorded. (Chicago person here talking)
In a just world, there are no controls that allow the police to turn off the camera, and disabling it would be a job-losing tampering with evidence felony.
In a just world, there are no controls that allow the police to turn off the camera, and disabling it would be a job-losing tampering with evidence felony.
What if they have to pee?
Pretty easy, every cop wears a light sensor attached to Mr.Happy the One-Eyed Cav Scout, and that light sensor works like the ones on street lights. When exposed to light it shuts off the camera.
This way, we all know if a cop comes after you with his dingle a danglin' he is either gonna wet on you or has even more malicious intents and does not want to be filmed.
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
notice how no one has found that clerk and talked to him? or how he didn't call the police after the incident? or how the huffington post pulled its "story" about witnesses confirming the police's story?
There's a lot of things with this that doesn't add up
Hey, that clerk is probably terrified right now. If he says anything bad or casts Michael Brown in an unfavourable light, the store will almost certainly be looted/burnt down, if it hasn't already happened. And maybe he didn't call the police because a customer did that for him? No point in making duplicate calls as far as I'm aware.
Yes I concur he was living in so much mortal terror that he did not report the crime even after brown was dead and before the riots started.
As a Thai citizen.
1. Ferguson is actually a neighbourhood of (West)St. Louis. NBT radio news report said it is 'a township' which it's baffling me a bit.
2. But something for sure is that the forensic team handling this case is the same team/crew or consists of a team doing Rodney King beating case 22 years ago. It's very shocking to me that the likes of Paunthip Rojjanasunandh did shown up in America! History is repeating itself!
I don't know if this will be the worst city riot in the USA since The Great L.A. Riots? The presence of NG (on CNN, one is standing on Hummer turret, manning an MG.. possibly it is either M60, or M249 SAW.... which intentionally a lethan weapon) seems to say that. I don't know if some crooked NG Commander or fascist inclining officer will organize a firing squad to crackdown the protests? since the armed riots and protests did happen in the same 'hood' and.. by some standars of military peacekeeping operations. (of some country)... Firing squads are permitted to keep peace!
3. And Here in Thailand. where the evil Junta the NCPO (Nominal name 'National Council of Peace and Order' ... Actual name 'National Coercion and Policing Order'... "คณะสารเลวแห่งชาติ") is ruling. I'm sure that its leader--Gen. Prayudh Jan-Ocha-- is watching this news to the detail and in the upcoming friday. He will 'explain' the reasons why curfew (or at least, military garrisons) is extended, and why peaceful protests are banned here... He might even plan a grandscale massacre by waiting for a big big riot to erupt in Bangkok (or instigating it himself! he's quite Macchiavellian! and determined to completely destroy the 'Red Factions' ) and this time he will shamelessly issue a grandscale firing squads and aired it around the country so to scare the protesters.... This is my concern but in this friday he's gonna say something about Ferguson riots and will claim that 'military constabulary action to handle protests' is legitible (as the USA is using it now! but AFAIK no firing squads are used against looters or gangsters though some hardcore media wants the NG to drag all gangsters to the streets and air the execution by firing squads around the country!).
Anyway the forensic crew must pay for this chaos! along with a crook cop.
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
notice how no one has found that clerk and talked to him? or how he didn't call the police after the incident? or how the huffington post pulled its "story" about witnesses confirming the police's story?
There's a lot of things with this that doesn't add up
Hey, that clerk is probably terrified right now. If he says anything bad or casts Michael Brown in an unfavourable light, the store will almost certainly be looted/burnt down, if it hasn't already happened. And maybe he didn't call the police because a customer did that for him? No point in making duplicate calls as far as I'm aware.
Yes I concur he was living in so much mortal terror that he did not report the crime even after brown was dead and before the riots started.
Lone Cat wrote: As a Thai citizen.
1. Ferguson is actually a neighbourhood of (West)St. Louis. NBT radio news report said it is 'a township' which it's baffling me a bit.
Why?
Couldn't find a good map, but Ferguson is between Florissant and Normandy:
2. But something for sure is that the forensic team handling this case is the same team/crew or consists of a team doing Rodney King beating case 22 years ago. It's very shocking to me that the likes of Paunthip Rojjanasunandh did shown up in America! History is repeating itself!
Very much doubt that...
I don't know if this will be the worst city riot in the USA since The Great L.A. Riots? The presence of NG (on CNN, one is standing on Hummer turret, manning an MG.. possibly it is either M60, or M249 SAW.... which intentionally a lethan weapon) seems to say that. I don't know if some crooked NG Commander or fascist inclining officer will organize a firing squad to crackdown the protests? since the armed riots and protests did happen in the same 'hood' and.. by some standars of military peacekeeping operations. (of some country)... Firing squads are permitted to keep peace!
Yeah... there's concerns as to what will happen to the surrounding neihborhood once this is over... but, Ferguson is middle-class little town. It's not "ghetto-like" at all.
3. And Here in Thailand. where the evil Junta the NCPO (Nominal name 'National Council of Peace and Order' ... Actual name 'National Coercion and Policing Order'... "คณะสารเลวแห่งชาติ") is ruling. I'm sure that its leader--Gen. Prayudh Jan-Ocha-- is watching this news to the detail and in the upcoming friday. He will 'explain' the reasons why curfew (or at least, military garrisons) is extended, and why peaceful protests are banned here... He might even plan a grandscale massacre by waiting for a big big riot to erupt in Bangkok (or instigating it himself! he's quite Macchiavellian! and determined to completely destroy the 'Red Factions' ) and this time he will shamelessly issue a grandscale firing squads and aired it around the country so to scare the protesters.... This is my concern but in this friday he's gonna say something about Ferguson riots and will claim that 'military constabulary action to handle protests' is legitible (as the USA is using it now! but AFAIK no firing squads are used against looters or gangsters though some hardcore media wants the NG to drag all gangsters to the streets and air the execution by firing squads around the country!).
Anyway the forensic crew must pay for this chaos! along with a crook cop.
Investigation is still ongoing... no official reports has been released yet.
(Sorry, this is probably known to all by now. I thought the article was from today, but it was from yesterday)
Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"
Frazzled wrote: You're assuming there is sufficient evidence to warrant charging for...anything.
Which I covered under "transparent grand jury process".
But hey, let's not read what I write.
I am not seeing a grand jury noted here. I'm seeing straight to trial.
A not-guilty verdict based on an transparent investigation, a transparent trial, and by a prosecutor who has no bone in the fight and who is running a case based on facts and without previous baggage would be justice because it's a verdict based on facts and not tainted.
Selective quoting = no point talking to you.
I mean, how many lines did that post have? And you ignored the two sentences right before the one you quoted?
Justice for the family can also be achieved by getting a not-guilty verdict, or not even going to trial, after a non-biased transparent investigation that removes any and all appearances of having the blue shield protect the officer.
A decision not to charge after a secret grand jury, or a not-guilty verdict based on the prosecution by a pro-cop DA who gives the appearance that he wasn't really interested in a guilty verdict from the beginning isn't justice for the family.
(Sorry, this is probably known to all by now. I thought the article was from today, but it was from yesterday)
Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"
A decision not to charge after a secret grand jury, or a not-guilty verdict based on the prosecution by a pro-cop DA who gives the appearance that he wasn't really interested in a guilty verdict from the beginning isn't justice for the family.
Help me out, what is a "secret grand jury" that you're against?
Face it, you're convinced this cop committed murder.
Maybe we're misperceiving each other. Are you saying the grand jury process should be skipped? if no then I apologize. If yes, then welcome to violation of due process of law.
There is a whole other sentence in both replies that you ignored. The second time it's even highlighted in orange as well.
I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.
That's why I say that they need to be sure to be transparent and avoid any appearance of bias. So that if he is not charged, or not guilty, it is clear that the dead guy and the cop both had a fair representation in the justice system. For the same of the community and the sake of the cop.
If the community can see that he got zero special treatment for being a cop they can heal faster. And the cop benefits because he doesn't have that cloud over his head for the rest of his career.
Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"
They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.
I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.
Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.
I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.
Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.
So we are supposed to throw our hands in the air and say "feth it" because some people will never change their mind?
That's just pure laziness and incredibly sad.
"We could bring some healing to the city by being as transparent as possible, we can remove 99.9% of the cloud that will follow the officer for the rest of his career and his life. But some people will never think that we did enough so feth the process, feth the family, feth the town, and feth the cop?"
Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"
They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.
Tasers are rather ineffective, especially against larger males, which Brown was by every definition. Add in drugs in the system (if that report was accurate), which also decrease the effectiveness.
Then add in the suspect running (according to official story) and the injury to the head and eye, chances are a taser would have missed.
Also remember, if Brown was charging the officer, it only takes a couple seconds to travel 25 feet. This is why officers train heavily in that scenario so that they can clear their firearm, aim (as much as you can), and shoot. If the officer had his firearm out already (which he did with the struggle in the car), he would have had no time to reholster the firearm and then draw the taser and use it.
I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.
Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.
So we are supposed to throw our hands in the air and say "feth it" because some people will never change their mind?
Of course not... I'd want the process as transparent as you just advocated.
That's just pure laziness and incredibly sad.
That's reserved to those who pre-judge and want Summary Justice™.
"We could bring some healing to the city by being as transparent as possible, we can remove 99.9% of the cloud that will follow the officer for the rest of his career and his life. But some people will never think that we did enough so feth the process, feth the family, feth the town, and feth the cop?"
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if all parties were as transparent as possible, it still wouldn't matter because the WHOLE THING is co-opted by outside agitaters.
Out of about 120 arrests, 4 were from Ferguson. The rest are outsiders and even out-of-state.
Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"
They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.
Tasers are rather ineffective, especially against larger males, which Brown was by every definition. Add in drugs in the system (if that report was accurate), which also decrease the effectiveness.
Then add in the suspect running (according to official story) and the injury to the head and eye, chances are a taser would have missed.
Also remember, if Brown was charging the officer, it only takes a couple seconds to travel 25 feet. This is why officers train heavily in that scenario so that they can clear their firearm, aim (as much as you can), and shoot. If the officer had his firearm out already (which he did with the struggle in the car), he would have had no time to reholster the firearm and then draw the taser and use it.
If I heard correctly. LEO was not armed with Tazers and the wielder charged at the officers yelling "shoot me"
I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.
Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.
So we are supposed to throw our hands in the air and say "feth it" because some people will never change their mind?
Of course not... I'd want the process as transparent as you just advocated.
That's just pure laziness and incredibly sad.
That's reserved to those who pre-judge and want Summary Justice™.
"We could bring some healing to the city by being as transparent as possible, we can remove 99.9% of the cloud that will follow the officer for the rest of his career and his life. But some people will never think that we did enough so feth the process, feth the family, feth the town, and feth the cop?"
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if all parties were as transparent as possible, it still wouldn't matter because the WHOLE THING is co-opted by outside agitaters.
Out of about 120 arrests, 4 were from Ferguson. The rest are outsiders and even out-of-state.
What does that tell you?
That the people of Ferguson are upset, that they have a history of racially charged issues, and that they have been on the street protesting every night since the event. And that they want to know that changes are being made and that Brown has his day in the justice system. Other people of Ferguson who don't think that there is a problem think that the cop won't get a fair shot and they want to know that he got a fair trial as well. That's what the people of Ferguson are thinking.
There are also a ton of people from out of the area who also protest peacefully, on both sides, because race and policing is a major issue in this country. The spark of this shooting would have just fizzed out if there was not a gak-ton of kindling ready to burn. The majority of these people also protest peacefully. And they also want to know that both sides had a fair shot at the justice system.
And then there are the idiots who riot and provoke the police. They have an agenda that goes beyond "we are discriminated against". You deal with those people by dealing with them, not the way the police has done prior to last night. You don't punish the people of Ferguson (either by rioting or using civil-rights era police tactics on them), you don't attack the reporters. You arrest the folks causing the problem. You work with the community (and last night was a good example of the police and the community working together against the outsiders).
There are distinct and separate issues here, lumping them together doesn't help anyone.
And there you go. Think about all that tear gas and hearing-protecting rubber bullets that was wasted on reporters and protesters. Now you have less to shoot at those guys...
Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"
They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.
Tasers are rather ineffective, especially against larger males, which Brown was by every definition. Add in drugs in the system (if that report was accurate), which also decrease the effectiveness.
Then add in the suspect running (according to official story) and the injury to the head and eye, chances are a taser would have missed.
Also remember, if Brown was charging the officer, it only takes a couple seconds to travel 25 feet. This is why officers train heavily in that scenario so that they can clear their firearm, aim (as much as you can), and shoot. If the officer had his firearm out already (which he did with the struggle in the car), he would have had no time to reholster the firearm and then draw the taser and use it.
If I heard correctly. LEO was not armed with Tazers and the wielder charged at the officers yelling "shoot me"
It wouldn't surprise me honestly. I know whole departments that don't have them. Some are from them not working (like literally broken and they can't get them fixed) and some are from chief's refusing to allow officers to carry them. (there have been problems with officers using tasers when they shouldn't)
whembly wrote:The Westboro group is protesting Ferguson...
Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"
They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.
Tasers are rather ineffective, especially against larger males, which Brown was by every definition. Add in drugs in the system (if that report was accurate), which also decrease the effectiveness.
Then add in the suspect running (according to official story) and the injury to the head and eye, chances are a taser would have missed.
Also remember, if Brown was charging the officer, it only takes a couple seconds to travel 25 feet. This is why officers train heavily in that scenario so that they can clear their firearm, aim (as much as you can), and shoot. If the officer had his firearm out already (which he did with the struggle in the car), he would have had no time to reholster the firearm and then draw the taser and use it.
If I heard correctly. LEO was not armed with Tazers and the wielder charged at the officers yelling "shoot me"
Worth watching. This cop tried to use a taser on a knife armed perp:
I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.
Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.
So we are supposed to throw our hands in the air and say "feth it" because some people will never change their mind?
Of course not... I'd want the process as transparent as you just advocated.
That's just pure laziness and incredibly sad.
That's reserved to those who pre-judge and want Summary Justice™.
"We could bring some healing to the city by being as transparent as possible, we can remove 99.9% of the cloud that will follow the officer for the rest of his career and his life. But some people will never think that we did enough so feth the process, feth the family, feth the town, and feth the cop?"
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if all parties were as transparent as possible, it still wouldn't matter because the WHOLE THING is co-opted by outside agitaters.
Out of about 120 arrests, 4 were from Ferguson. The rest are outsiders and even out-of-state.
What does that tell you?
That the people of Ferguson are upset, that they have a history of racially charged issues, and that they have been on the street protesting every night since the event. And that they want to know that changes are being made and that Brown has his day in the justice system. Other people of Ferguson who don't think that there is a problem think that the cop won't get a fair shot and they want to know that he got a fair trial as well. That's what the people of Ferguson are thinking.
There are also a ton of people from out of the area who also protest peacefully, on both sides, because race and policing is a major issue in this country. The spark of this shooting would have just fizzed out if there was not a gak-ton of kindling ready to burn. The majority of these people also protest peacefully. And they also want to know that both sides had a fair shot at the justice system.
And then there are the idiots who riot and provoke the police. They have an agenda that goes beyond "we are discriminated against". You deal with those people by dealing with them, not the way the police has done prior to last night. You don't punish the people of Ferguson (either by rioting or using civil-rights era police tactics on them), you don't attack the reporters. You arrest the folks causing the problem. You work with the community (and last night was a good example of the police and the community working together against the outsiders).
There are distinct and separate issues here, lumping them together doesn't help anyone.
Maybe I wasn't clear... my ire is directed to the outsiders.
I have no issues whatsoever for Ferguson/Brown family protesting to make sure they are heard.
Anyway the forensic crew must pay for this chaos! along with a crook cop.
Investigation of the police officer is ongoing. The forensics are still in process. This isn't CSI. Cases aren't resolved in 60 minutes.
The Chaos was created by the rioters themselve AND the local PD uping the anti with their tacti-cool gear.
Here in the US, we have the court of law and due process. Keep your Thai vigilante justice to yourself.
In the United States. even in a midst of chaos and under which curcumstance (in case of civil unrests, not a few man bomb attack) will the full curfew be enacted and to which extend the NG and/or any Armed Forces may be authroized a lethal resolve?
Before the coming of non-lethal protest crackdown. in 60s. (or late 50s) the United States has entered the era where many cities were put under curfew. there was a picture of black schoolgirl being escorted by fully armed troops (Army? or NG??), this was due to the racial tensions of the 50s/60s and also Attica Prison riots which the armed forces did alot of killing to resolve the situation. This ended riots but began criticism over the need of lethal forces.
In the nations ruled by a tyrant, what happened in the US in 50s justify their means to resolve political problems. no matter how archaic it is.
Personally I AM AGAINST THE WAY JUNTA SOLVES POLITICAL UNREST. but saying that 'this is vigilancy' it's wrong. for me. vigilants were band of (possibly armed) civilians working for the side of the law/leader, not fully enlisted soldiers nor officially organized. but it may be endorsed by any regime. a vigilant may aid the regime but may NOT do a firing squad.
the 'vigilant justice' you quoted is actually 'repression' should it done by the regime.
Frazzled wrote: Isn't the army in charge in Thailand? Don't they deal with protests with tanks?
They did. 22 years ago. with M41.. and in 2010 (though the 'tank' in question is actually Chinese - made APC)
This time I fear the army will build a concentration camp and dump all political prisoners there. His popularity is falling sharply after 3-hours friday speech, and the 'bad starts' of 'Council of Reformation'... the very reform PDRC (Suthep's goons) requested.. but in the end, none of PDRC nor its alliances (and not even its enemies, the Red Factions) join the council in question.
I am a very imperfect person, I know this. But I have always prided myself on being a reasonably fair person and one that passionately believes in the goodness of America. I am a news junkie and read far too much news. Like millions of others I have been drawn to the tragic death of Michael Brown in Ferguson (Missouri) at the hands of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson. I believe that there have been incidents in American history both long ago and recently that show policing powers have and do become corrupted. But I try hard not to reach that conclusion without a full understanding of the facts. I don't believe that this is an easy task given the media and the manner which news is not reported with a "just the facts" manner but instead with a social or political bent.
What occurred in Ferguson (MO) was tragic. The loss of life by any human is a horrible thing in most instances. Whomever has died had people who loved them and they will be missed. Yet in death I believe those of us living have a responsibility to honor in a dignified manner that person who is no longer with us. Such honor should give the friends and family of the dead comfort and also when required by law, must give honor to the legal system that we have in America. I fear that we are doing neither for Michael Brown and believe that we, the public, are wrong if we allow such disregard to continue. The parents of Michael Brown have asked for peace and civility in the wake of his death and I believe they are sincere. I have no reason not to believe this. However, I also know they are not being respected by the media, politicians or the public at large.
What do we honestly know? We know that on 9 August 2014 at approx. 12:01 pm Michael Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking in the middle of a street in a small (less than 22,000 citizens) city (Ferguson) in rural St. Louis County. We know that Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were asked or told by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson to move out of the street and walk on the sidewalk. We know that something occurred and that prior to 12:04 pm when a second Police Officer arrived on the scene, Mr. Brown was left dead after this encounter. Three minutes, 180 seconds after the first contact are the "unknowns" at this point.
As I write this (08/20/2014) a Grand Jury is scheduled to begin meeting as early as today although reports are now saying that findings may not come until October. The truth is that the Grand Jury will hear the facts in evidence and to decide if Officer Wilson should be charged with a crime for his actions. To me this is the "simple" part of this situation. Simple because the law gives direction of the legality of an act and if that act was justified or not. I am, as a I said before, willing to be even tempered and allow justice to work.
Sadly, I feel far too many others are unwilling to allow this and those more radical voices are being aided by not just the media but opportunistic self appointed community leaders, elected politicians and even some in the media.
We are told by the media that this shooting must be an issue of race however nothing is offered to show that Officer Wilson harbored any bigoted thoughts or feelings and in truth the one thing we know is that he, a six year veteran, had no complaints lodged against him and that as late as February 2014 he was given a commendation for good service. No question that Officer Wilson is a white man or that Mr. Brown is a black man. However is the ethnicity of each enough to call this a racial issue?
The media tells us (08/18) that credibility issues exist because the Prosecutors of St. Louis County Mr. McCollugh a man who has been in elected office since 1990, just might be unable to be impartial in this case because his father was a police officer who was killed by a black man in the line of duty in 1964 when he was twelve. The media tells us that Mr. McCollugh has a long history of family members working for Police Departments (Mother and Uncles) and offers the insinuation that he could be unable to cross the "thin blue line". They ponder these questions without offering any evidence that Mr. McCollugh has show a history of propensity of bigoted decisions. The media has been given this "credibility" and "impartiality" angle thanks in part to an elected government official, County Executive Charlie Dooley who was first appointed to the position in 2003 and then won a special election in 2004. Mr. Dooley has been in that position since that time however he lost his bid to remain during a primary challenge in August 2014, so unless he runs as an independent or write-in candidate it would seem his tenure will be ending soon. But what was it that Mr. Dooley said that aided the media in a call for the prosecutor to step aside? According to St. Louis CBS on 08/16 Charlie Dooley called for the State AG to remove Mr. McCollugh or for him to recuse himself because, "McCulloch’s objectivity has come under question because his father – a police officer – was killed in a shooting, and because he openly criticized the decision by Gov. Jay Nixon to remove county police from the streets of Ferguson this week." Does Mr. Dooley have a valid criticism? I have no idea but I do wonder, if valid, why hasn't Mr. Dooley raised this concern prior to 2014 considering he has been the elected county executive since 2004 and was a councilman for St. Louis County from 1994 until his appointment as county executive in 2003. Remember, Mr. McCollugh has been the elected prosecutor since 1990. Mr. Dooley has had ten years to raise concerns about Mr. McCollugh's ability to be impartial has he done so or is he just using this situation to now do so? Additionally, how grotesque is it that the 1964 murder of Mr. McCollugh's father at the hands of a black man is being used to question his ability fifty years after it occurred. Funny that Mr. Dooley request the prosecutors removal but is not requesting the United State AG Eric Holder to be either removed or recuse himself once you consider that Mr. Holder on 08/20 stated to the AP that he, "told how his father, an immigrant from Barbados proudly wearing his World War II uniform, was ejected from a whites-only train car. How his future sister-in-law, escorted by U.S. marshals, integrated the University of Alabama in spite of a governor who stood in the schoolhouse door to block her. How as a college student, he was twice pulled over, his car searched, even though he wasn't speeding." Does not Mr. Holders personal history predjudice him just as much as Mr. McColluchs? To me the only question I can ask is, really, has it come to this?
Although we don't have the full account of what occurred in those three minutes on 9 August, I will agree with Mr. Dooley in that credibility is an issue. However, I believe that the credibility of all involved is open for conversation. Look, I am a flawed person and there are issues in my life that because of my past behavior I don't believe I have the credibility to speak on with authority. Do I think that means I am not a "credible" person. No. It does mean that I understand people give more weight to people with far more experience, education than I. It may not seem fair but it is life and I accept that. So what do we really know about the parties involved?
We know key people are Officer Wilson and Dorian Johnson. Only they know what words were exchanged that began the events which resulted in Mr. Browns death. Mr. Johnson has retained an attorney and has spoken with the media about that tragic day. Officer Wilson has, at this time, not spoken and while it has been reported a "friend" of his has spoken to ABC News and to talk show host Dana Loesch the truth is we have not heard his story or read his report.
Mr. Johnson reported to Chris Hayes (MSNBC) that Mr. Brown was running away when he was first shot and that he (Mr. Brown) was holding up his hands in surrender when the subsequent rounds were delivered by Officer Wilson's weapon that ultimately resulted in death. Today (08/20) 100.7 The Viper (radio station in St. Louis) is reporting that Mr. Johnson has recanted his statements to the police and has stated that Mr. Brown attacked Officer Wilson. Which is true and is it appropriate to question Mr. Johnsons credibility?
I think it is reasonable to question the credibility of Mr. Johnson (and everyone's - even my own to be honest), particularly when we now know that just minutes before the altercation between Officer Wilson and Messer's Johnson and Brown that they (Johnson and Brown) were involved in what is being characterized as a strong arm robbery at 11:51 am at the Quick Trip party store. [whembly: author is wrong, it's a small convenience store, not QT] Mr. Johnson was aware when he was interviewed by Mr. Hayes and others that he and Mr. Brown had (presumably) just committed this offense yet he did not mention this. On one hand I understand leaving it out - honestly. Maybe the story isn't true and Messer's Johnson and Brown had nothing to do with it. Maybe Mr. Johnson did not mention it on the advice of his attorney because an outgoing investigation. I get it. But it does lead one to question Mr. Johnsons credibility, fair or not.
What about the credibility of Officer Wilson? What do we know. Well, thanks to the media we know a great deal about him. We know Mr. Wilson has been a police officer for six years. We know he has no complaints against him and was awarded a commendation earlier in the year. We know he lost his mother when he was 16, is divorced but currently lives with a fellow employee of the police department (her name has also been released) and at the home they share is a swimming pool, basketball hoop, metal American flag out front and they have a couch on the front porch. We know the house was valued at 180,000 and that his neighbors are concerned about people coming into the area to cause problems. We know that the media discovered his fathers Facebook page and took photos and quotes from that page. We know that Mr. Wilson played hockey in high school and that his mother (who again died when he was 16) had a past criminal record for fraud and that this is being communicated (according to the media (Daily Mail) to show his character). In fact we know from the media what his home looks like as local media and CNN have broadcast video of it including the street address on the home. OK. Fine, I agree that knowing an individuals background gives you an insight into credibility. But what was the point of telling us Officer Wilson had a swimming pool or that his home was valued at 180,000? Will this not make some folks assume he was part of the "middle class" and as such unable or unwilling to understand Mr. Brown or Mr. Johnson? Why show his home on the television or report the name of his girlfriend? Honestly all I can think it, really. Has it come to this.
So we know a little about Mr. Johnson and Mr. Wilson but what of Mr. Brown? Should we know about his back ground and what may events may have led up to his thinking on the day of the incident. Are such things fair? As shown earlier, AG Holder was willing to share how his past experiences have given him insight into how he responds is it not fair to ask what are the things in Mr. Browns history that have shaped him?
The media has reported that Mr. Brown was known as a "gentle giant" who in spite of his size did not want to play football because he was not attracted to violence. His family and friends have talked about how he was proud of graduating high school and looking forward to going to college. His mother related how he was proud of his music and how he had a sound cloud account that allowed him to share his music with others. I listened to Mr. Browns music (or "Big Mike" as he called himself) and have regrettably found the music to be filled with images of guns, violence, b*****s and h**s, not to mention drugs and of course running s***t in the hood. Big Mike hash-tagged his music with things like; #trap (street for dope / crack house), #reals**t. Songs like; Money Religion, Body Bag, S**t talka, Hu$tle, Smokn' dope, We don't play, Ca$hn dough and lights out all tell a story of values and perspective. But I also know that his music isn't directed to 46 year old white men and while I am a fan of some rap music (to be fair mostly old school stuff; Slick Rick, Public Enemy and a few others. Disclosure; I have a weird like for Lil'Jon and love "turn down for what" . . . yeah, I know). Anyhow, my point is that cussing and violence in music does not offend me but I am cognitive that it sends off a message to the larger community. I know that if you search for it you will find photos of Mr. Brown making gang signs (Piru Blood to be specific). You will also find photos of Mr. Brown smoking dope, flashing money and looking for all to see the role of modern day gangsta. It isn't fair and I will admit that but the truth is people take all of the things we do and form an opinion. My opinion of Mr. Brown is that he is the typical 18 year old kid in America who has been far too influenced by modern media and adopted many of those things as part of who he was. No different than when I was 18 and had long hair, wore the tight parachute pants, bandannas and elf boots of the heavy metal scene that dominated the culture. The difference is that I was able to grow out of that period and Mr. Brown was not. I know that if you watch the video from the Quick Trip robbery (if it is Mr. Brown and to be fair the family AAL Mr. Parks stated on 08/18 that, "it appeared to be him") that he did not appear to be a "gentle giant" at that moment. I know the spontaneous memorial placed where Mr. Brown was shot (where Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton have both "prayed") shows people placing empty alcohol bottles (he was 18 right), Nyquil (used to make "lean"), blunt wraps and cigarillos (it was cigarillos that Mr. Brown is alleged to have stolen just prior to the shooting and for the unaware black and mild, swisher sweets and so on are used to roll pot). I also know that at the memorial is a Pittsburg Pirate hat with off coloring (Red P with bill) which is most associated with the Piru Bloods. It is all in plain sight but unless you know - you won't know. I know that fair or not all of these things play into what people will think about Mr. Brown just as much as the murder of Mr. McColluchs father plays into Mr. Dooleys belief that he can be impartial and just as much as AG Holders personal history plays into how he views this incident. It isn't necessarily fair but it is reality. I once worked with a guy named Dennis Sullivan and he was fond of saying, "you want fair? OK, the fair is in August and life doesn't happen just during that week". He was right.
It seems to me that from the very first day of this horrible event the presentation of the media has been very pro-social justice and anti-police (or authority, if you will). Consider that the media, non elected community leaders and even some elected leaders blamed the early rioting and looting on the local police. The local police were said to be inciting the riots by using tear gas and dressing in riot gear. I imagine there is a school of thought that supports such feelings but I also know that it is difficult to second guess folks when businesses are being burned, looted, citizens are throwing Molotov cocktails, rocks and other objects at the police and continuing to shoot at not only each other but the police. I felt Gov. Nixon was correct in brining in the State Highway Patrol to take over the policing of the protest but noticed that they engaged in the very same tactics. I felt that Gov. Nixon was wrong to call in National Guard particularly in light of the criticism that the police had been too militarized but I concede he has that power, authority and responsibility.
As I follow politics pretty closely Gov. Nixon was not an unknown character to me. In truth he has been talked about as a possible Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate but is seen by many as being far too moderate. I don't live in Missouri so I don't know. What I do know is that Gov. Nixon, in my opinion, has been all over the map. Appearing on the Sunday talk show circuit (08/17), Gov. Nixon (08/17) said that the night prior (Saturday) was a "A solid step" forward. I struggled with that and wondered did Gov Nixon know that seven people were arrested and one person was shot in a town of approx. 22,000 residents on 08/1? Honestly, is that a "solid step". Then on 08/17 (Sunday) the peaceful protest again devolved into chaos. But remember it was the Gov. who said the local police were too militarized and acted too harshly thereby causing much of the chaos. Recall that Pres. Obama from his rented vacation home on Martha's Vineyard supported the Gov. and called the police harsh and questioned if they were using excessive force. It was such pontifications that led to the Gov. removing the local police and installing the State Highway Patrol who's commander on the ground marched with the protesters and related that the Brown Family will need to be thanked for Michael because his death will make it better to be a black man in America (assumingly things will change, right. But, how about Michael being a felon who just committed a strong armed robbery and who may have been fighting with the police. Are those not possibilities?). Yet now the Gov. calls in the very militarized Army National Guard to assist the Highway Patrol all because . . . . Sunday night the highway patrol had to use tear gas like the local police did and apparently two more civilians were shot by other civilians and at least one police car was fired upon. So where was the "solid step". Overnight on 08/18 thirty one people were arrested, two people shot and multiple Molotov cocktails thrown at the police along with other objects and the police used tear gas, flash bang grenades, riot gear and vehicles. Not to mention four police officers hurt along with an unknown number of protesters hurt and the police seized two handguns. Where is the "solid step" that Gov. Nixon mentioned? I have been following a Facebook Group; Ferguson Scanner Updates that reports to be providing a rolling feed of police calls and actions in Ferguson. A simple review of this page does not support the "solid step" that Gov. Nixon spoke of and I wonder if he would now change that assessment. If nothing else would he agree that it was not such a "solid step" when the Gov. lost control of his press conference (08/15) on CNN and allowed Rev. Shabazz to take over? Was it a "solid step" when someone (name unknown) took the podium in front of the Governor and said the County Prosecutor needs to press murder charges on Mr. Wilson.
Because I think leadership is at a major loss in many areas I want to stay on Gov. Nixon for a moment. On 08/20 in an news story on Yahoo! it was reported that Gov. Nixon stated, "A vigorous prosecution must now be pursued,” Gov. Jay Nixon (D) said in a five minute video address posted to his website on Tuesday (08/19). Such a statement is worrisome, as Gov. Nixon is an attorney and former Attorney General, Gov. Nixon, clearly know that at the time of this statement no indictment had been handed down and that the Grand Jury is scheduled to meet, today (08/20) in fact. Does his statement not have the capacity to prejudice the Grand Jury proceedings as he is the highest elected official in the State, a lawyer and a former AG? Gov. Nixon also said; “The democratically elected St. Louis county prosecutor and the attorney general of the United States each have a job to do,” said Nixon, a Democrat. “Their obligation to achieve justice in the shooting death of Michael Brown must be carried out thoroughly, promptly, and correctly.” ABC News is reporting that the Governor will not seek to remove the county prosecutor in this case as he is quoted as saying it "could unnecessarily inject legal uncertainty into this matter and potentially jeopardize the prosecution." But wouldn't it be fair to believe that, Gov. Nixon, in light of his statements about not removing the prosecutor and how doing so could "inject legal uncertainty", coupled with his statement that a "vigorous prosecution must be pursued" and his not so gentle reminder to the St. Louis county prosecutor that they are "democratically elected" are something more? To me, I believe the Governor is poisoning the well and offering a mild threat that if the grand jury determines not to prosecute Mr. Wilson the county prosecutor will somehow be punished for not fulfilling what the Governor sees as an "obligation to achieve justice". But justice at what cost. Sadly this does not appear to be a search for justice when the starting point is a Governor who states there is a need for a "vigorous prosecution" prior to the prosecutor beginning to present the case to a grand jury. This is a perversion of justice. Even last night (08/19) the St. Louis media (CBS) is reporting that the night saw 47 arrest, some looting, chants of "time to kill a cop", bottles of urine thrown at police and what one police officer called "looting tourism" as the police report more than 93% of all those arrested are not from Ferguson. Amazing.
I do think that the community has a right to protest and demand not just an investigation but an open and transparent investigation.[whembly: me too!!!] I believe the Ferguson Police were correct when they (or someone above there command) made the decision to have the St. Louis County Police handle the investigation was correct. I believe the demanding nature of the media for more information from the Ferguson Police is inappropriate as they know the investigation is ongoing and that the case I being handled by another department. I believe that the so-called hacker collective Anonymous was wrong to threaten the Ferguson Chief of Police with disclosing information about his daughter if he did not release the officers name. I believe the Chief of Police was on firm ground when he released the video allegedly of Mr. Brown robbing the Quick Trip along with the report from that incident given the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that the media had submitted to his department. I question the timing of the release but understand the information was already being sought by the media.
I am befuddled that before the investigation is complete or findings are presented to a Grand Jury that not one, not two but three autopsies have been performed on the late Mr. Brown.[whembly: seriously, does anyone else find that strange?] The Brown family Attorneys, Messer's Crump and Park have said that the family requested an autopsy because they were not getting information from the local authorities and because they wanted an independent review. On the first argument I can only imagine that the local authorities were holding off on information because of an ongoing investigation. On the second count, I have no idea of the local authorities can or should be trusted and would defer to the fact that if this were the case then the State should have stepped in. But honestly, what have we learned from the families autopsy? The family autopsy showed at least six shots. All would be consistent with shots to the front. Four to the arm and two to the head. The ME who did it even stated they could have been because Mr. Brown was going toward the police officer. This fits the story that has been circulating from a supposed friend of Officer Wilson (although we have no idea if this is true of it is consistent with Officer Wilsons report). What we do know is that if this information is true that it is not consistent with the story shared by Mr. Johnson. We also know that on 08/19 St. Louis Post-Dispatch Crime Reporter Christine Byers tweeted; "Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting". We know that moments after the shooting citizens were taking video tape of the police on the scene and on one video shared at the website Progressives Today a conversation was overheard and that conversation seems to refute the idea the Mr. Brown was simply surrendering with his "hands up, don't shoot". In this conversation two men are heard speaking. During that exchanged one man on the tape (face unknown) tells another; #1 "But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him" {crosstalk} #2 "Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus – the police had his gun drawn already on him" #1. "Oh, the police got his gun" #2 "The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him" {crosstalk} #2 "Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing" #1 "The Police?" #2 "The Police shot him". If this conversation is true is it not possible that Mr. Brown went after or continued to go toward Officer Wilson? Notice this witness said nothing about his "hands up". On that isn't it just possible that his "hands up" if they were in that position were that way because he was running after or toward someone to fight? Does this not fit what we now have learned from the families own autopsy? Does this not contradict Mr. Johnson's report to the media? Is it not possible that Mr. Brown knew he and Mr. Johnson just committed a crime and because of this he (Mr. Brown) was amped up and feeling like he could strong arm the police just like he did the store clerk and get away? Was Mr. Brown feeling like, "no, I am not going to jail today" and did he attack the police officer to get away? Was Mr. Brown on any substances at the time of the incident that led to this? (Note; I know that some websites are reporting he was but none of that is known as of yet). We do know that his spontaneous memorial included alcohol bottles, Nyquil (used to make "lean" or "sizzurp") bottles and blunt wraps all placed by people who knew him (more information above).
Regarding the autopsy the family had done it seems many questions could exist about it. It seems that on 13 August, Messer's Crump and Park during a press conference indicated the autopsy was already done. But on 17 August Dr. Baden, the man reported to have preformed flew to Missouri to conduct the autopsy as reported by the New York Times. This is in conflict with Messer's Crump and Parks who said on the 15th of August that an autopsy had been conducted. This would make sense with the timeline that Prof. Shawn Parcells who he assisted with the autopsy and had appeared on the Lawrence O'Donnell show on 13 August to say he was contacted by the family. When asked about the autopsy at a 15 August news conference on Fox 2 News St. Louis, AAL Parks was ask, "have you seen the results of the results of the autopsy" to which he responded, "have not and were not going to talk about the second autopsy that we did there will be a time for that". The clear implication is that the autopsy findings were already done on 15 August when Mr. Parks referenced them in the past tense by saying, "the second autopsy that we did" (see video at link below; question and answer begin at approx. 15:46). So was the autopsy done on the 15th or the 17th? Mr. Crump during his interview with Anderson Cooper on AC360 that I will concede that small things can differ but two days? This strikes me as odd because after looking into some of this I discovered that Prof. Parcells has what can only be called an interesting history. Professor Shaw Parcells, was mentioned in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story in May 2013 where it was alleged he, “has inflated his qualifications and performed autopsies without a medical license.” That worried some coroners, who felt Parcells’ could “jeopardize criminal cases, potentially allowing a murderer to go free.” Did Prof. Parcells complete the autopsy and did Dr. Baden simply review it? If that was the case why not just say so? If that isn't the case why are the dates so confused? Look, I am an average guy. I am not an AAL like Messer's Crump and Parks or like Prof. Parcells and Dr. Baden and if I find this confusing how can such educated men not say, "whoa, wait a second, we need to correct this". More importantly why is it that the media seems to have not caught this?
Messer's Crump and Park demanded the Ferguson Police release not only the name of the officer but how many times Mr. Brown was shot refuse to release copies of the autopsy performed at the request of the family to the media. Why? If they demanded the police release information (and understand, I am fine with that demand although I respect the Ferguson Police deferring to the prosecuting attorney and St. Louis County Police) how is it they feel like they should not release the information they have. My bet is that if it supported the case they wish to make they would do so and do so quickly.
It is confusing to say the least and it not given any clarity when the Governor and others are out demanding a trial and "justice" before and indictment is even handed down.
Not to be outdone it is being reported that the DOJ had an autopsy completed on Mr. Brown on or about 08/19. I have no real issues with this but I do wonder why. Under the law the state is required to perform this task. Does the AG have evidence that the state is incompetent? Is the AG worried that the autopsy performed by the state will not provide the narrative he desires? Does the AG understand the precedent this could set and more importantly does the AG understand that if the findings the DOJ reaches are different then those of the state this case could provide a springboard for countless numbers of challenges to past findings by the state / county medical examiner. It is confusing.
I must also admit that I have been surprised at the President's involvement so far. In full disclosure, I am not a fan of Pres. Obama and have documented the many reasons that I do not believe he is worthy of my trust or respect as my President. That aside, I don't understand why the President has been briefed by the AG on a daily basis (according to the media). Do we not have some ongoing issues with ISIS (they just beheaded an American Journalist today 08/19). Syria (they still have not handed over the Chemical Weapons to Russia as promised last year - the deadline was June). The so called border Humanitarian Crisis (did that story just die off or what?!? seriously). Not to mention Gaza, Ukraine (Russia), Iran (were they not just identified as supplying part of the weapon systems used by Hamas) or our domestic issues. But, OK, the President wants to stay informed. No worries. Except according to both the President and the AG neither of them were aware of Fast and Furious (which killed one INS Agent (Brian Terry) and more than 300 Mexican Civilians). The AG was unaware of the DOJ tapping AP reporters phones or those of James Rosen (reporter). The POTUS has said that it is only through the media that he heard of the problems with the IRS scandal, NSA scandal, ACA websites and so on but he is aware and being briefed about this. Really. The Pres. was not present in the situation room (according to the White House) during the attack upon Benghazi but he is aware of this issue and is being briefed. Wow. Understand I know some will read this and think; "typical right winger". The problem is that I am not and more importantly all of those are issues within the federal government and are under the POTUS' command. The death of Mr. Brown, tragic and horrible as it is, falls under the authority of Gov. Jay Nixon and the State of Missouri first. Why not allow them to do the job they are task prior to simply moving in and starting a DOJ investigation?
In his remarks on 08/18 the president said, "there are young black men that commit crime" and that they "deserved to be prosecuted". He states that we can argue they do so because of poverty or poor education but they should be prosecuted. But . . . . he then says given the history of this country. Mr. President, with all due respect . . . enough.[color=orange][whembly: agreed!!!]WE elected you to represent all of us. Yet . . . when you come out and tell somehow we must be a racist society it is growing old. Does racisim exist? Yes. Are the majority of Americans racist? No. But many are being polarized.[/color] Is it racist to demand this officers head without knowing what happened because that is exactly what is happening. Yet . . . here we are. When will the POTUS call out Rev. Shabazz and those making racist statements against Mr. Wilson - show consistency. Call out the violence within the black community on a consistent basis (did you know more black men and women have been killed in Chicago from 2009 until today than have been killed in Afghanistan during the same time). Not everything can be racist. Can we just get some consistency, please. The parents of Mr. Brown have been consistent at asking for peaceful protest and were even willing to call out Rev. Shabazz and ask him to stand down on 08/20. To me that was leadership and is even more impressive when you consider that they actually are grieving at this time. [whembly: Indeed. And the media at large refuses to showcase that]
I also find it odd that the AG of the US, Eric Holder, will be in Ferguson on 08/20. Why wait if it is such a serious issue that you as AG must brief the POTUS and the POTUS must return to Washington from his Martha's Vineyard vacation. Why wait until the 20th? It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the fact that is the day the St. Louis County Prosecutor has scheduled the Grand Jury Investigation would it? We know from the POTUS that the DOJ CRS group (Community Relations Services) is already on the ground in Ferguson. Look, my opinion; Gov. Nixon, MOAG Chris Koster, County Prosecutor McCulloch and probably AG Holder and the POTUS have already been briefed on the investigational findings. The County autopsy is completed and I am sure all of them know what it indicates. I would wager they already have an idea of the outcome and have planned for it. Are those in power getting ready to soft sell the fact that there may not be enough evidence to support charges against Mr. Wilson? Is that why the AG will have waited more than ten days to head to Ferguson if it was of such important. Is that why Gov. Nixon made a video demanding a prosecution. Is this political "CYA"?
Not to be left out MO State Senator Chappell Nadal has taken the advice from the old DMX song (Party up) and basically said, "y'all gonna make me act a fool, up in here up in here" as if "y'all" can make someone do something. Yet, Sen Nadal said it is the police (all the police actually) who are making this situation worse when she said; "the State Highway Patrol, the St. Louis County Police as well as the Ferguson Police Department may be trying to make this situation worse than what it actually is.“ Really. police cars shot at. Businesses burned and looted and the POLICE are to blame. Now that is leadership right there folks.
Here is the thing . . . . we don't know enough information to make a positive assessment right now but it is clear that the media and some politicians sure seem willing to try and convict Mr. Wilson. Hell, the New Black Panther Party led by Rev. Shabazz were chanting (08/16); "What do we what" (response) Darren Wilson "How do we want him" DEAD. But the media is ignoring that! Shoot Cpt. Johnson - who had walked arm and arm with Rev. Shabazz earlier (yes, literally as there are photos of this online) is doing nothing. But then again when Rev. Shabazz and his group printed "Wanted Dead or Alive" flyers in the George Zimmerman case neither the local authorities or the DOJ did anything then. The Pres., AG and Gov. Nixon all called the actions of the local police wrong and inferred they (police) were overreacted in Ferguson. The President as we all recall said the police acted "stupidly" in the past creating the "beer summit" but none of them have spoken out about the chants or other things that are clearly wrong. Why?
Seriously . . . how silly is all of this. Rev. Al Sharpton criticizes Gov. Christie (of NJ) in the media because during the Ferguson chaos he (Gov. Christie) appears on stage dancing with Jamie Foxx on the Hamptons! Really. It's the Gov. of NJ's fault?!? Hey, Rev. Sharpton, how about criticizing Pres. Obama who was on vacation - golfing and attending fundraisers during the same time and ironically also in the Hamptons. Oh, that's right . . you want to politicize this and make the "white" Gov. look insensitive to the "black community" prior to the 2016 election - am I right? Maybe someone should remind the Reverend that while we are all forgiven or our sins it is difficult to forget things like; Freddie's Fashion Mart, Twana Brawley and the "white interlopers" comments regarding the Jewish community in Harlem. Right. But is the President calling him out for this and saying he acted "stupidly"? In fact the very day Rev. Sharpton called out Gov. Christie the media reported that Pres. Obama spent five hours at a private dinner party or as one reporter put it . . more time having dinner and enjoying the company of friends than he did in the White House addressing Iran and Ferguson.
Not to be outdone the Washington Redskins Football Team (btw; isn't the media mostly against the Redskins because of the name. . . irony, right) took to the field on 08/18 with "hands up, don't shoot". OK, except the truth is we don't know if Mr. Brown was or was not making that gesture and the person most responsible for telling the media that (Dorian Johnson) has been shown to be untruthful in at least one instance. Further, what if Ms. Byers is right that at least 12 witnesses agree with the police version. Look we know for a fact the video tape (see above) shows at least one witness telling a story that paints Mr. Brown as the aggressor. Yet, the players with the Redskins took the field with political speech. Why? What happened to waiting until we actually have facts? Seriously.
At some point we need to be honest and say that in more than one high profile instances the cases just don't pass things just don't add up. Keep in mind; Tawana Brawley, Cornelius Weaver, Alicia Hardin, Duke University (District Attorney Mike Nifong), Madonna Constantine, Jena 6, and so many other cases that gain national prominence turn out not to be exactly as sold and they then fade into obscurity without anyone ever saying; wait, words, accusations matter and ought to have consequences. Bigotry in any manner is wrong and should be ferreted out and stopped. However so too is inflaming anger when it may not be warranted. Who is served when the community is divided? How profits from such division? Let's be honest, right. Somebody is making money by appearing on TV, giving speeches and flying from place to place making accusations otherwise they wouldn't do it. Right. In the end is this helping unite our Country?
Something is wrong here folks and it is far worse than just this tragic killing. I don't believe anyone should die over a petty theft. However I don't know if Mr. Brown assaulted a police officer or not. I know he clearly is being accused of assaulting a store clerk just prior to this incident. I don't know if Mr. Wilson is guilty of a crime. I also don't think we will find the truth. We will find what will make political sense for those in power. Mr. Wilson will be charged with something by the DOJ, I believe. His life will be over and Mr. Browns family will be left grieving.
This isn't about "no justice, no peace" it is about perverting justice to reach an outcome that is already being demanded by political and social leaders even if the evidence does not warrant it.
Understand . . . if Mr. Wilson is guilty of a crime he needs to be charged and given his day in the court of law. However that day should come without the assumptions of politicians and unelected so call community leaders tainting the jury. But in the end the truth is that we have come to this and really it is sad.
Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.
Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?
Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.
If this ends up true, controversy over. But I suspect the protesters will still find fault with the cop for even interacting with the kid in the first place.
d-usa wrote: Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.
Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?
Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.
Didn't the rioting start before the melanin deficiency of the PoPo was known or am I incorrect on that?
The entire nation is freaking out? I guess I better load Dad's M1. Oh wait, its not.
d-usa wrote: Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.
Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?
Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.
Didn't the rioting start before the melanin deficiency of the PoPo was known or am I incorrect on that?
The entire nation is freaking out? I guess I better load Dad's M1. Oh wait, its not.
Just some town west of St. Louis.
So all of us are living in a town west of St. Louis, only people from some town west of St. Louis are talking about this, and everybody is only quoting news from the "Some town west of St. Louis Times"?
People talking about this composes your definition of freaking out? No-one at the office has talked about it. The family hasn't talked about it. Ghost TBone studied the issue but found it to be non-steak related and moved on.
Under that definition people must be utterly losing it about the weather. I've talked about the weather like four times today.*
*This in no means Frazzled is endorsing a Cat IV hurricane to come barreling at him in some evil cat god's form of a sick joke....
d-usa wrote: Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.
Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?
Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.
I don't think 'white officer' has anything to do with it. Officer William Lozano's (Colombian/Hispanic) shooting caused the Overtown riots in '89 (I got to see that one). Change 'white officer shot black kid' to 'officer shot black kid' and you get a lot closer.
And I don't think the media is bugging about a single shooting, I think the police reaction to the protests and looting is what has really garnered media attention. Folks throwing the race card on either side were doing so to get more emotion and motivation, adding fuel to an already lit fire. It is a very common tactic used by one side (in this case) to influence the crowd to act in a away sure to bring actions by the cops that can be portrayed (rightly or wrongly) as over reaction, especially when the cops have already done so.
"Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
d-usa wrote: Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.
Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?
Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.
You just bought it hook, line, and sinker then.
It's should NOT be "race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation".
It should simply be about what transpired that led to Brown's death.
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
I don't think 'white officer' has anything to do with it. Officer William Lozano's (Colombian/Hispanic) shooting caused the Overtown riots in '89 (I got to see that one). Change 'white officer shot black kid' to 'officer shot black kid' and you get a lot closer.
Fair enough.
And I don't think the media is bugging about a single shooting, I think the police reaction to the protests and looting is what has really garnered media attention.
It's both actually. The shooting in isolation is not newsworthy. The shooting in relation to race and policing in this country was newsworthy. The response to the protest and the looting are news as well.
Folks throwing the race card..
This whole "race card" and "race baiting" stuff just really needs to stop.
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
Its not intended to be. Its not St. Louis metro and thats what the news are saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: I think it's very telling that the officer related shooting of the white 20-year old In Utah is being largely ignored by the media.
Utah is really hot. Reporters aren't going to go where its hot.
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
Its not intended to be. Its not St. Louis metro and thats what the news are saying.
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
All of them would say "St. Louis".
Don't you mean "St Louie" You could always tell people not from there by how they pronounced it, at least years ago.
Its like when I'm standing at the bus stop here and someone mispronounces "Yankeeland" as "New York."
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
Its not intended to be. Its not St. Louis metro and thats what the news are saying.
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
All of them would say "St. Louis".
Don't you mean "St Louie"
Well, the really awkward part is when we actually pronounce the "St." like "-st".
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
All of them would say "St. Louis".
Don't you mean "St Louie"
Well, the really awkward part is when we actually pronounce the "St." like "-st".
cincydooley wrote: I think it's very telling that the officer related shooting of the white 20-year old In Utah is being largely ignored by the media.
white people getting shot isnt race related and wont sell in the news like pandering to easily riled up folks among us. The real Bias here is the medias, being one of selling the story.
its not news worthy unless mr sharpton is yelling about it I guess.
Apparently, if a white cop shoots a black person, even if it is justified, its de facto "race related" to some people, and to others is justification for violent and destructive riots.
That would seem to be the only race related issue in this particular case.
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
Its not intended to be. Its not St. Louis metro and thats what the news are saying.
Frazz... it is absolutely "St. Louis Metro".
Spoiler:
This is basically "St. Louis":
OK cool, thats not how I'm reading it from the news but cool.
d-usa wrote: Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.
Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?
Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.
You just bought it hook, line, and sinker then.
It's should NOT be "race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation".
It should simply be about what transpired that led to Brown's death.
So let's go backwards from the final event.
Brown gets shot by cop <---Brown got into a fight with cop <--- Brown was stopped for jaywalking <--- The town has a long history of stopping black people in disproportionate amounts <--- The police force is mostly white while the city is mostly black <---- Nationwide pattern of racially problematic policing.
The reaction to the shooting is based on a long and very extensive nationwide problem. You can try to ignore the giant pool of gasoline and only try to focus on the one guy with the match standing there, but that would be ignoring the problem that allowed this reaction to happen in the first place.
cincydooley wrote: I think it's very telling that the officer related shooting of the white 20-year old In Utah is being largely ignored by the media.
white people getting shot isnt race related and wont sell in the news like pandering to easily riled up folks among us. The real Bias here is the medias, being one of selling the story.
Listen kid, when you want to present some studies and sources saying that there is zero race related issues in US law enforcement then be my guest.
If you want to stand there going "lalalalala race is not a problem it's all just pandering and race baiting lalalalala" then that is fine as well. Just don't expect me to take your opinion seriously.
and to others is justification for violent and destructive riots.
When your country quits rioting over hockey then I will consider your insightful ideas about riot prevention
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
Its not intended to be. Its not St. Louis metro and thats what the news are saying.
Frazz... it is absolutely "St. Louis Metro".
Spoiler:
This is basically "St. Louis":
OK cool, thats not how I'm reading it from the news but cool.
Brown gets shot by cop <---Brown got into a fight with cop <--- Brown was stopped for jaywalking <--- The town has a long history of stopping black people in disproportionate amounts <--- The police force is mostly white while the city is mostly black <---- Nationwide pattern of racially problematic policing.
The reaction to the shooting is based on a long and very extensive nationwide problem. You can try to ignore the giant pool of gasoline and only try to focus on the one guy with the match standing there, but that would be ignoring the problem that allowed this reaction to happen in the first place.
which is total, and utter BS.
Unless you would like to prove how the alleged
history of stopping black people in disproportionate amounts
directly caused the late mr brown to break the law by jaywalking, which is something he is supposed to be stopped for.
Besides which, its a very much unproven allegation that all cops are racists who would shoot/arrest a black person in situations where they would not shoot/arrest a white person.
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
Its not intended to be. Its not St. Louis metro and thats what the news are saying.
Frazz... it is absolutely "St. Louis Metro".
This is basically "St. Louis":
Spoiler:
So they have kind of a Chicagoland thing going. I was surprised when I first visited Chicago to find that, unlike NYC, the term Chicago also covers some of the immediate environs that aren't in the city proper.
d-usa wrote: Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.
Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?
Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.
You just bought it hook, line, and sinker then.
It's should NOT be "race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation".
It should simply be about what transpired that led to Brown's death.
So let's go backwards from the final event.
Brown gets shot by cop <---Brown got into a fight with cop <--- Brown was stopped for jaywalking <--- The town has a long history of stopping black people in disproportionate amounts <--- The police force is mostly white while the city is mostly black <---- Nationwide pattern of racially problematic policing.
The reaction to the shooting is based on a long and very extensive nationwide problem. You can try to ignore the giant pool of gasoline and only try to focus on the one guy with the match standing there, but that would be ignoring the problem that allowed this reaction to happen in the first place.
I see where you're coming from and from an objective standpoint, I think it's valid.
However, it's striking too close to home here for me...
I guess what I'm objecting to is bringing in the following grievances at this time:
-The town has a long history of stopping black people in disproportionate amounts (if you lived here, you'd now that this is constantly being looked at)
-The police force is mostly white while the city is mostly black (unfair criticism, but okay)
-Nationwide pattern of racially problematic policing.
These grievances shouldn't NOT be the focal point of the current protest, because it's overshadowing what we all should be focusing on... and that is making sure that there's a transparent, effective investigation.
All these outsiders protestings, political speeches, media-mania is not helping.
So they have kind of a Chicagoland thing going. I was surprised when I first visited Chicago to find that, unlike NYC, the term Chicago also covers some of the immediate environs that aren't in the city proper.
D-USA - I may be misquoting here, but I believe the report is not that they were jaywalking but they were walking down the middle of the road in traffic. With that in mind I'm not sure the "disproportionate" racial profiling. But I dunno.
cincydooley wrote: D-USA - I may be misquoting here, but I believe the report is not that they were jaywalking but they were walking down the middle of the road in traffic. With that in mind I'm not sure the "disproportionate" racial profiling. But I dunno.
doesnt matter to d-usa that they were stopped for a legitimate crime,
you cannot assert that they were legitimately stopped without being labled as going "lalalla no racism"
cincydooley wrote: I think it's very telling that the officer related shooting of the white 20-year old In Utah is being largely ignored by the media.
white people getting shot isnt race related and wont sell in the news like pandering to easily riled up folks among us. The real Bias here is the medias, being one of selling the story.
Listen kid, when you want to present some studies and sources saying that there is zero race related issues in US law enforcement then be my guest.
If you want to stand there going "lalalalala race is not a problem it's all just pandering and race baiting lalalalala" then that is fine as well. Just don't expect me to take your opinion seriously.
except thats not what I have said, AT. ALL.
Only person going lalalalala is you as you lie about peoples posts, intentions, and insult them personally instead of adressing that this was a legitimate stop by the cop.
I never said there is no racism, dont lie and put words in my mouth or edit my posts and quote them if you want to be taken seriously.
daedalus wrote: "Some town west of St. Louis" is pretty disingenuous. If you were to ask anyone living in Ferguson where they lived, I assure you the majority of them would tell you St. Louis.
Its not intended to be. Its not St. Louis metro and thats what the news are saying.
Frazz... it is absolutely "St. Louis Metro".
This is basically "St. Louis":
Spoiler:
So they have kind of a Chicagoland thing going. I was surprised when I first visited Chicago to find that, unlike NYC, the term Chicago also covers some of the immediate environs that aren't in the city proper.
cincydooley wrote: D-USA - I may be misquoting here, but I believe the report is not that they were jaywalking but they were walking down the middle of the road in traffic.
I have always heard "walking in the street" referred to as jaywalking. If that is the incorrect term I am sorry.
With that in mind I'm not sure the "disproportionate" racial profiling. But I dunno.
I think we have seen a few instances in this thread where the finding was that both nationally as well as locally more blacks were stopped and then let go, but whites where stopped less frequently but more likely to have actually committed a crime when stopped.
I know I have seen the findings on things like that outside the thread.
Some day you will learn to argue against what people are actually saying instead of arguing against random points that nobody actually made.
take your own advice there then and stop lieing about the content of my posts and mis quoting them.
you asserted that there is a deep seeded widespread and universal problem in that racist shootings, which can only BE a problem if a significant % of the cops are racist.
Some day you will learn to argue against what people are actually saying instead of arguing against random points that nobody actually made.
take your own advice there then and stop lieing about the content of my posts and mis quoting them.
you asserted that there is a deep seeded widespread and universal problem in that racist shootings, which can only BE a problem if a significant % of the cops are racist.
You are almost adorable now.
You know that stuff can affect one race without the perpetrators being racist right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, protip:
Don't bitch and accuse people of misquoting you while at the same time misquoting them in your signature.
If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?
I've noticed that cops tend to stop vehicles based on the appearance of the vehicles, the more ghetto looking the car the more likely it is to get stopped. Race aside, poorer people tend to have cars that aren't maintained as well and receive more scrutiny be it simply because the cars look bad and often have safety and operational related issues such as lights being out, bad tires, etc. Those are extremely common reason for conducting traffic stops.
When I was a teenager and college student I always had used cars that were near broken down and plenty ghetto, as a result I got pulled over a lot (despite being white). After I finally ended up getting a new car that wasn't all full of rust holes and beat up looking I haven't gotten pulled over since, not due to any change in driving habits but from reducing the questionable state of my car.
Junky and ill maintained cars are pretty common in poorer neighborhoods and because of their state of dis-repair are going to stopped more often regardless of the drivers race.
stanman wrote: If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?
I've noticed that cops tend to stop vehicles based on the appearance of the vehicles, the more ghetto looking the car the more likely it is to get stopped. Race aside, poorer people tend to have cars that aren't maintained as well and receive more scrutiny be it simply because the cars look bad and often have safety and operational related issues such as lights being out, bad tires, etc. Those are extremely common reason for conducting traffic stops.
When I was a teenager and college student I always had used cars that were near broken down and plenty ghetto, as a result I got pulled over a lot (despite being white). After I finally ended up getting a new car that wasn't all full of rust holes and beat up looking I haven't gotten pulled over since, not due to any change in driving habits but from reducing the questionable state of my car.
Junky and ill maintained cars are pretty common in poorer neighborhoods and because of their state of dis-repair are going to stopped more often regardless of the drivers race.
The converse is sometimes a Nice Car with preppy looking white kids in a bad neighborhood gets pulled over because they don't fit in the surroundings. Anything that does not belong is going to attract a cop's attention.
stanman wrote: If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?
I've noticed that cops tend to stop vehicles based on the appearance of the vehicles, the more ghetto looking the car the more likely it is to get stopped. Race aside, poorer people tend to have cars that aren't maintained as well and receive more scrutiny be it simply because the cars look bad and often have safety and operational related issues such as lights being out, bad tires, etc. Those are extremely common reason for conducting traffic stops.
When I was a teenager and college student I always had used cars that were near broken down and plenty ghetto, as a result I got pulled over a lot (despite being white). After I finally ended up getting a new car that wasn't all full of rust holes and beat up looking I haven't gotten pulled over since, not due to any change in driving habits but from reducing the questionable state of my car.
Junky and ill maintained cars are pretty common in poorer neighborhoods and because of their state of dis-repair are going to stopped more often regardless of the drivers race.
One if the key pieces from the different stuff I have read was that they are stopped more often and then let go, aka no laws were broken and they were stopped for no reason. I don't think that one was Ferguson specific.
It's not against the law to drive beat-up old cars, so there is no reason to stop people for driving beat-up old cars.
stanman wrote: If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?
I've noticed that cops tend to stop vehicles based on the appearance of the vehicles, the more ghetto looking the car the more likely it is to get stopped. Race aside, poorer people tend to have cars that aren't maintained as well and receive more scrutiny be it simply because the cars look bad and often have safety and operational related issues such as lights being out, bad tires, etc. Those are extremely common reason for conducting traffic stops.
When I was a teenager and college student I always had used cars that were near broken down and plenty ghetto, as a result I got pulled over a lot (despite being white). After I finally ended up getting a new car that wasn't all full of rust holes and beat up looking I haven't gotten pulled over since, not due to any change in driving habits but from reducing the questionable state of my car.
Junky and ill maintained cars are pretty common in poorer neighborhoods and because of their state of dis-repair are going to stopped more often regardless of the drivers race.
One if the key pieces from the different stuff I have read was that they are stopped more often and then let go, aka no laws were broken and they were stopped for no reason. I don't think that one was Ferguson specific.
It's not against the law to drive beat-up old cars, so there is no reason to stop people for driving beat-up old cars.
d-usa wrote: It's not against the law to drive beat-up old cars, so there is no reason to stop people for driving beat-up old cars.
Anything that stands out is more likely to get pulled over, red cars get stopped more often then other colors because they stand out. Sporty cars tend to get pulled over more often than mini vans. As mention by a previous poster anything that's atypical of the neighborhood will likely draw attention.
It's not illegal to drive a beat up car, however beat up cars are more likely to have safety issues going on which are a perfectly legit reason to stop them. It is against the law to be driving with cracked windshields, missing headlights or taillights, same with bald tires those things endanger that car as well as others that share the road with them. Those issues aren't nearly as common on newer vehicles. So the ghetto-mobile is far more likely to get pulled over, and those are common in the low income minority communities. (and plenty common in poor white areas too)
stanman wrote: If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?
...
...
Suppose 60% of the town are black, and 80% of the traffic stops are black people. Do you see the logic?
It has been widely noticed that cops have a tendency to stop drivers and pedestrians on the basis of the appearance of their skin colour.
For those who don't like clicking on huffpo links (I'm sure there are some of you out there) It's a cop saying 'I'm going to fething kill you' to some bloke walking around filming the goings on with his camera phone.
Hopefully the guy with the camera phone is just some stirrer who got someone to add a bit of a voice track to it, but the way the cops have been handling it so far I'm not really confident of that. Sigh.
For those who don't like clicking on huffpo links (I'm sure there are some of you out there) It's a cop saying 'I'm going to fething kill you' to some bloke walking around filming the goings on with his camera phone.
Hopefully the guy with the camera phone is just some stirrer who got someone to add a bit of a voice track to it, but the way the cops have been handling it so far I'm not really confident of that. Sigh.
Derping is epic all over.
I heard on the radio about this and he's been taken out of rotation.
d-usa wrote:I have always heard "walking in the street" referred to as jaywalking. If that is the incorrect term I am sorry.
By every definiton that I've ever heard basically, "jaywalking" is the act of crossing a street where there is no designated crosswalk, especially within a town/city where there are almost always designated crosswalks at every intersection (often times, within residential areas, they won't paint the "cross walk lines" but will angle the sidewalks to allow wheelchairs access to crossing the street, etc and still counts as a crosswalk). I don't think it really applies to 2 lane highways in the middle of nowhere, but definitely in an urban/suburban area.
Sweet Grilled Cheesus!!! That honestly made me immediately mad. If I saw a soldier do that, they would be in a world of unimaginable pain and misery. Not only should he be taken out of rotation but lose his badge and be barred from ever serving in a State or Federal job again. Yah I feel that strongly about police threatening the citizens that I swore to protect with my life.
Jay walking is usually crossing the street outside of the marked crossing areas. But I think it's more likely a case where they were actually walking in the road, not simply crossing it. It's pretty common in the city for people to actually walk in the street lanes as a way of disrupting traffic or so they can solicit cars. When I've driven through some rough areas where they had project housing it's not uncommon for individuals to walk or stand in directly front of cars in the middle of the street as a way of controlling the traffic, or just being an intentional pain in the butt to anyone from outside the neighborhood.
When I was high school age in the Baltimore area, there was a common 'tough guy' routine whereby kids would walk in the middle of the road, and stare down and threaten drivers riding by. I know 2 kids (kids at the time) who got arrested for jaywalking for this, so I think it may have a broader meaning at least in practice than just crossing the street at the wrong place.
Kilkrazy wrote: Or multiple shots from the front, finished with a coup de grace to the head, as is usual in military executions.
But what I am trying to express is that if the policeman was in serious pain and danger, he could easily have reacted by shooting as hard and fast as possible at his assailant, and hit him multiple times with the end result of an execution style of shooting.
That is a firing squad, and typically requires more than one shooter.
An execution-style murder, also known as Chicago-style murder and execution-style killing, is an act of criminal murder where the perpetrator kills at close range a conscious victim who is under the complete physical control of the assailant and who has been left with no course of resistance or escape
I haven't read anything that suggests that the deceased was under the officer's control when the fatal shot was fired, or that he had no means of escape.
CptJake wrote: If he was following his training (specifically in regards to firing) he would have been shooting as 'hard and fast as possible' hitting him multiple times. Generally you are trained that IF you are firing you are going to fire until the target goes down and is no longer a threat. You don't fire a round, evaluate where it hit and what damage it may or may not have done, then repeat as necessary. Pain or lack of pain may have an effect on how well you shoot.
Robert recently posted an article on a question posed to a guest by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer:
“On Thursday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked guest [lawyer] Jeffrey Toobin why police weren’t instructed to ‘shoot to injure, instead of kill,’ talkingpointsmemo.com reports. “Blitzer’s questions arose during a discussion on the unfurling conflict in Ferguson, Mo. over the fatal police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. ‘They often shoot to kill,’ Blitzer said of police. ‘Why do they have to shoot to kill? Why can’t they shoot a warning shot in the air, scare someone off if they think they’re in danger. Why can’t they shoot to, injure, shall we say? Why do they have to shoot to kill?’”
Blitzer’s question is, sadly, all too common . . .
Americans are treated to a steady stream of good guys purposely and casually wounding bad guys, usually in the shoulder. On TV and in the movies, such beyond-Olympic-level shooting always disarms and incapacitates the bad guy, and when the good guy is similarly wounded, they are barely inconvenienced and heal with amazing speed.
Not only is this sort of shooting incredibly dangerous to good guys and innocent bystanders, it’s almost always legally disastrous. In addition, any survivable gunshot wound may have life-long health implications. As regular readers may remember from an earlier article, one shoots to stop an attacker, to immediately–to whatever degree that is possible–cause them to cease the hostile actions that made the use of deadly force legally permissible. For the purposes of this article, we’ll assume that all legal burdens have been met. The good guy, under the laws in force when and where he has to shoot, is legally in the right when he pulls the trigger. But how is he going to accomplish his purpose: stopping the bad guy?
There are three primary means of stopping a human being:
Neural damage
Breaking the skeleton
Exsanguination
There are, however, many other considerations.
1) Neural Damage: causing trauma to the brain usually causes immediate cessation of hostile action. In fact, SWAT marksmen try for a brain stem shot whenever possible. They try to hit a hostage-taker exactly where the brain and brain stem meet, at the base of the rear of the skull. If properly placed, a bullet to this spot will cause the potential killer to drop as though a light switch had been thrown. Even if they have their finger on the trigger of a gun, they will not be able to pull it.
Unfortunately, this area is a very small target. In fact, relatively speaking, the human head is also a small target, particularly if it’s moving at all. Notice too that I’m talking about a highly trained marksman making the shot with a scoped, highly accurate rifle, almost always with the benefit of a spotter and from a supported position. Accurately shooting a handgun at the same target, even at close range, is much more demanding.
In addition, the target will seldom present the back of his skull to the shooter and stand still long enough for a perfect shot to be made. Marksmen commonly have to estimate where that tiny spot is while shooting from the front, side, above or below, or various angles of the same.
2) Breaking the skeleton: while breaking a femur or the pelvis, for example, will cause most people to drop to the ground, they may very well still be capable of pulling a trigger. And if so, have merely been rendered less mobile, not stopped. Making such shots with any degree of reliability with a handgun is exceedingly difficult, not only because such targets are small, but also because people move more or less constantly and the precise location of a major, load-bearing bone in a given person’s leg may be difficult, at best, to determine. It’s also particularly difficult because, compared with rifle ammunition, most handgun ammunition lacks the power to reliably break large bones.
3) Exsanguination: someone shot in an artery, or even the heart, may have up to three minutes of useful consciousness if they are truly determined to kill you regardless of the damage they suffer in the attempt. However, once sufficient blood is lost, the resulting drop in blood pressure will inevitably lead to unconsciousness and ultimately death.
Of course, a combination of these three primary effects may be more effective and faster in stopping hostile action.
Fortunately, such matters are not only physical, but psychological. Many people, upon receiving even an easily survivable gunshot wound, immediately drop and cease hostile action due to the “OMG! I’ve been shot!” response. Others–thankfully relatively few–may absorb ridiculous numbers of bullets which might slow, but not stop them, as they try to continue their deadly attacks. This is frequently assisted by drugs present in their system. Such people eventually succumb to one or more of these effects, but “eventually” is not helpful or comforting if they are attacking you.
The best course of action is to aim for “center mass,” or the part of the torso at or around the sternum, and fire enough rounds to force the attacker to stop. It’s the cumulative affect of blood vessel damage, neural shock, and psychological shock that will have the greatest effect, therefore more than one round may be necessary.
Keep in mind that it is always a good idea, even if you cannot avoid or escape a potential deadly force situation, to do your best to avoid shooting. Always remember that when the justification to shoot ends, the shooting immediately ends.
You must never think about “shooting to wound,” let alone try to do it. The law doesn’t require it, and it will be highly likely to backfire for several significant reasons. Obtaining the desired stopping effect with a shot that inflicts only a non-mortal wound is highly unlikely and could conceivably enrage an attacker who will then press an attack he might have otherwise abandoned. The necessary physical damage and psychological effect is simply not there, and making such a shot accurately is highly unlikely.
In fight-or-flight situations, among the first abilities human beings lose–which accompany time distortion, tunneling and hearing loss–is fine muscle control. This makes it very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the intention to shoot someone effectively in a small portion of the body so as to immediately disable them, to say nothing of actually carrying out that intention. For most people, it’s simply physically impossible. There are many documented incidents of police officers–people supposedly highly trained in marksmanship and the use of deadly force–emptying their handguns at criminals doing the same from ridiculously close range. When the gunsmoke cleared, both weren’t touched; every round missed. Hitting center mass will be more than hard enough, but with proper training and practice, attainable.
An additional concern is that in the heat of battle, many people suffer serious wounds, but are unaware of it until the danger has passed. Despite suffering multiple gunshot wounds that might eventually kill them, they didn’t so much as feel the bullets hit them. Some people may be so high on drugs they’re incapable of feeing anything. Shooting an arm or leg will likely do nothing more than make a dangerous felon who’s intent on killing you somewhat less mobile, but no less deadly. Hitting center mass will maximize the probability of quickly stopping a dangerous attacker—whether they feel it or not.
Also, substantial legal liability may attach. If you were so cool and detached that you could shoot someone in the knee, did you really have sufficient reason to shoot them in the first place? If you really thought that you were in mortal danger, why did you take the time to shoot them someplace that any reasonable person should know wouldn’t reliably stop them?
Yes, stopping them will likely result in their death, but you didn’t intend to cause their death. You intended only to stop them from causing yours. That they subsequently died is regrettable, but they made that choice and forced it upon you. You aren’t the attacker, but an innocent victim who will be affected for the rest of your life by the action they brutally forced on you.
In all cases, if you shoot at all, you shoot to stop, and you accomplish this by delivering a sufficient volume of accurate fire to that part of the body most likely to cause them to stop. When the threat has stopped, you immediately stop.
At this point, you may find yourself experiencing some degree of revulsion. If so, good for you. You have a conscience. I can’t say often enough that no moral, rational human being wants to harm or kill another. Violence is cruel, nasty, hateful and bloody, but the choice is simple and stark: do you prefer to be alive and unharmed, or bleeding, perhaps dying on the ground, at the mercy of someone cruel and inhuman enough to attack you? Which alternative would you prefer for those you love? Which of these outcomes is morally superior?
Deadly force encounters aren’t scripted scenes in movies. They’re as deadly serious as any human interaction can be, and the loser frequently winds up assuming ambient temperature. Leave shooting to wound to the movies. An action hero’s job is to sell popcorn, and they don’t have to aim and shoot under pressure. They can afford the luxury of shooting to wound. You can’t, regardless of what Wolf Blitzer thinks.
stanman wrote: If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?
... ...
Suppose 60% of the town are black, and 80% of the traffic stops are black people. Do you see the logic?
It has been widely noticed that cops have a tendency to stop drivers and pedestrians on the basis of the appearance of their skin colour.
Police don't patrol all areas of a town with the same frequency so looking at the total stops isn't accurately reflective of what is actually occurring on a given route. Say you are a police officer that is assigned an area that is populated entirely by blue people, there's a good chance that all of people you stop or arrest are blue. Somebody that doesn't take into account where you are assigned says OMG because 100% of your arrests target blue people you're a total racist against blue people! Their enforcement efforts may be completely unbiased but because they are assigned a certain route or area to work it can have a pretty dramatic impact on the numbers if you ignore the local demographics of that area.
While there's always individuals that may show a bias in their duties, raw sampling of the numbers doesn't give an accurate portrayal of if those officers are being biased or not. You would have to take a much deeper look at the demographics of the community and take all of the variances into consideration.
Suppose a city has 100k people, 60% of those are blue and 40% are orange. Maybe the blue people rack up 80% of the traffic stops, by the raw numbers it may seem that they are being targeted more frequently. But it could be that those neighborhoods are patrolled more frequently and so more stops are performed there skewing the numbers. Other factors might impact things as well, suppose that the majority of the Orange people live within access to trains or other public transportation and due to having a different commuting style only 50% of them actually drive. Suddenly the percentage of drivers stopped isn't quite that far apart.
The only way to figure out if a specific race is being targeted would be to do a break down of the driver demographics in a given area, (and times as well) That would give you a model to work from which you run a tally against. You can't make a simple assumption that because blue or orange people make up this percentage of a population that they should have x amount of tickets. You need to study the individual areas as every street and neighborhood will tend to have it's own distinct traffic patterns and racial make up of the drivers will vary heavily.
Suppose a city has 100k people, 60% of those are blue and 40% are orange. Maybe the blue people rack up 80% of the traffic stops, by the raw numbers it may seem that they are being targeted more frequently. But it could be that those neighborhoods are patrolled more frequently and so more stops are performed there skewing the numbers. Other factors might impact things as well, suppose that the majority of the Orange people live within access to trains or other public transportation and due to having a different commuting style only 50% of them actually drive. Suddenly the percentage of drivers stopped isn't quite that far apart.
I think another thing to look at, aside from "do police patrol one area more than another" is "how often are police called to one area over another for various things" .. Police departments track this sort of information, so if the Blue neighborhood "requires" the police to come out 20 times in one week for things like domestics, armed robbery, theft, etc. and the Orange neighborhood called the police 8 times in the same time period, then the police department of BlueOrangeVille are going to obviously send more patrols into that neighborhood. As such, they are simply going to see/react to more traffic situations and other "petty offenses" which, to an outsider would look like "targeting/profiling" when really it's more a matter of resource allocation: putting resources where they are needed most.
Frazzled wrote: Its getting personal. No need for that. We already all know how this is going to end, don't we, friendo...
I'd like to think you were flipping a quarter while saying that.
A quarter from 1952. Its travelled 62 years to get here, at this moment...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: When I was high school age in the Baltimore area, there was a common 'tough guy' routine whereby kids would walk in the middle of the road, and stare down and threaten drivers riding by. I know 2 kids (kids at the time) who got arrested for jaywalking for this, so I think it may have a broader meaning at least in practice than just crossing the street at the wrong place.
Do this in Texas and you'll be wearing fender paint from the next redneck pickup driver that passes by. This is not a boast, we just have really sucky donkey-cave pickup driving rednecks here...because AMERICA!!!
Woah... Looks like things are completely under control now:
FERGUSON, Mo. — Members of the Missouri National Guard who were deployed by the governor arrived on Monday and immediately began to police call spent brass and cigarette butts around the police command center at a nearby mall, Duffel Blog has learned.
Local leaders and Guard officials have assured the public that soldiers would only fill this type of limited role.
“We’ll continue to ensure a neat and orderly appearance of the command center and nearby areas,” said Guard Capt. William Strothers. “We also have enough paint, rakes, and sand to have a really nice rock garden complete by the time we leave here.”
Other Guard duties will include setting up a coffee mess in the command tent and a car wash in order to raise money for the battalion ball held later this year. But not all Guardsmen were excited to hear about their duties.
“Well this just totally blows,” said Private First Class Rory Watson, as he dejectedly polished one of his three tactical knives. “I thought we’d be military advisors for the police. You know, like in Iraq. I came here to get some, not sell unit t-shirts to cops.”
Still, many soldiers were excited to be deployed to FOB Red’s BBQ in Ferguson. Sgt. First Class Ron Donaldson, who has never deployed prior to events there, is supervising a morale patch design contest with fellow Guardsmen.
“This one has Al Sharpton on it,” said Donaldson, showing some of the proposed designs. “Once we settle on a good design we’re going to convince our lieutenant to authorize us to wear it. We’re also going to try and be approved to get a riot suppression badge. Hmmm … badges.”
Ferguson police say they are delighted to have the National Guard along side them.
“I think it’s great they’re here,” said one officer. “I sure as hell don’t know how to maintain all these surplus tanks and flamethrowers we bought from the military with our end of the year funds.”
d-usa wrote: One if the key pieces from the different stuff I have read was that they are stopped more often and then let go, aka no laws were broken and they were stopped for no reason. I don't think that one was Ferguson specific.
It's not against the law to drive beat-up old cars, so there is no reason to stop people for driving beat-up old cars.
I posted some similar info earlier in the thread, but everyone seemed to ignore it, so here it is again:
LAtimes wrote:Blacks make up 65% of Ferguson's population, yet they accounted for 93% of arrests after traffic stops, 92% of searches and 80% of traffic stops in the city last year, according to a racial profiling report by the Missouri attorney general.
When stopped by police, blacks in Ferguson were twice as likely as whites to be arrested -- even though police found contraband for 34% of whites stopped, versus 22% of blacks -- said Scott Decker, a criminologist on a team contracted by the attorney general's office to compile the data.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Woah... Looks like things are completely under control now:
FERGUSON, Mo. — Members of the Missouri National Guard who were deployed by the governor arrived on Monday and immediately began to police call spent brass and cigarette butts around the police command center at a nearby mall, Duffel Blog has learned.
Local leaders and Guard officials have assured the public that soldiers would only fill this type of limited role.
“We’ll continue to ensure a neat and orderly appearance of the command center and nearby areas,” said Guard Capt. William Strothers. “We also have enough paint, rakes, and sand to have a really nice rock garden complete by the time we leave here.”
Other Guard duties will include setting up a coffee mess in the command tent and a car wash in order to raise money for the battalion ball held later this year. But not all Guardsmen were excited to hear about their duties.
“Well this just totally blows,” said Private First Class Rory Watson, as he dejectedly polished one of his three tactical knives. “I thought we’d be military advisors for the police. You know, like in Iraq. I came here to get some, not sell unit t-shirts to cops.”
Still, many soldiers were excited to be deployed to FOB Red’s BBQ in Ferguson. Sgt. First Class Ron Donaldson, who has never deployed prior to events there, is supervising a morale patch design contest with fellow Guardsmen.
“This one has Al Sharpton on it,” said Donaldson, showing some of the proposed designs. “Once we settle on a good design we’re going to convince our lieutenant to authorize us to wear it. We’re also going to try and be approved to get a riot suppression badge. Hmmm … badges.”
Ferguson police say they are delighted to have the National Guard along side them.
“I think it’s great they’re here,” said one officer. “I sure as hell don’t know how to maintain all these surplus tanks and flamethrowers we bought from the military with our end of the year funds.”
Airborne.."Knife hand"..Your stealing my thunder..damn SPC's these day's
daedalus wrote: One of these days, duffelblog is finally going to give me an aneurysm.
Can you imagine rioting soldiers...
SAND HILL, FT. BENNING, GA - Many soldiers and family members are angry over reports of controversial remarks from the Commanding Officer of Fort Benning at a recruit graduation.
Speaking to an assembled crowd of new soldiers and their families at basic training graduation, Maj. Gen. Robert Brown was reported as “extremely hostile.”
His speech began with the “standard fluff” about duty, country, and the privileges of serving when such a small percentage of the country chooses a career in the Armed Forces. The speech took a turn, however, when the General reached a point in his remarks, obviously reused from previous ceremonies.
“Look to your left and right towards your brothers in arms,” said Brown. “You’re all now members of a proud warrior class, and heroes like your fathers before you who-”
The General stopped, took a deep breath and crumpled the sheet before flinging it to the ground.
“Feth it! I can’t read crap like this anymore. Listen up you little bald bastages.”
The newly minted soldiers — trying to stay awake throughout the ceremony — shifted uncomfortably in their seats at the sudden change in tone.
“Some of you Retards won’t make it past AIT [Advanced Individual Training]. You’ll wash out with the rest of the weakness that never should have been here in the first place. Most of you who do graduate will immediately go to combat units and deploy overseas. Many of you will threaten to kill yourselves to get out of real work, although you wont have the balls to actually do it!”
Brown’s tone got softer as he attempted to clarify.
“Don’t get me wrong here. Many of you will actually go fight and engage the enemy in close combat. For that I salute you. It takes a hard motherfether to go kill people you’ve never met just because we say so.”
The General then resumes his “motivational speech” to what he referred to as “the rest of you crap-stains.”
“You’ll most likely spend your deployment sitting on a FOB, manning guard towers, or waiting to go on patrols that get cancelled. I have a reality check for you all. Not everyone in this room is a hero. I don’t give a s**t what the beer commercials say. You drag your buddy out of a grape hut after you’ve stabbed two Taliban in the eyes with a broken MRE spoon then you’re a motherfething American Hero. You clear a trench with nothing but a sack of hand-grenades and your giant brass balls, then you’re a motherfething hero! But walking through the desert for three months without hearing a shot fired in anger and posting pictures in your combat gear doesn’t make you a gawddamned hero! I don’t care what your family says. They’re not heroes. Neither are your fething wives. Hardest job in the Army, my ass! Damn it, I’m too old for this s**t. Feth you all.”
Gen. Brown then threw up his middle finger to the crowd and stormed off the stage, hustling into his waiting staff car.
The silence after his speech was soon broken by wild applause from the assembled Drill Sergeants and Officers responsible for training the young soldiers over the previous ten weeks.
Less enthusiasm was displayed by the families and the new graduates, who stormed the stage and attempted to destroy the auditorium to express their displeasure. The ensuing riot caused over a half-million dollars in damage, and Drill Sergeants were forced to kill 11 Privates in self-defense.
An Army spokesman has said that General Brown will not be scheduled as the keynote speaker for next week’s graduation ceremony.
cincydooley wrote: Jesus wolf blitzer. Spoken like an idiot that's never fired a weapon before. Shoot to injure? FFS.
In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.
In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot at the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.
Which comes down to a difference of approach in law enforcement... Here in the US, not only would that cost an LEO their job, but probably a couple million (minimum) in a civil suit... not to mention, that's just against the Geneva fething Convention (yeah yeah... doesn't apply to police policing their own citizens)
Which comes down to a difference of approach in law enforcement... Here in the US, not only would that cost an LEO their job, but probably a couple million (minimum) in a civil suit... not to mention, that's just against the Geneva fething Convention (yeah yeah... doesn't apply to police policing their own citizens)
But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up. And no, it is not against Geneva convention to not kill people.
Which comes down to a difference of approach in law enforcement... Here in the US, not only would that cost an LEO their job, but probably a couple million (minimum) in a civil suit... not to mention, that's just against the Geneva fething Convention (yeah yeah... doesn't apply to police policing their own citizens)
But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up. And no, it is not against Geneva convention to not kill people.
Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go.... And the Geneva Conventions have articles in it explicitly about causing undue suffering, which is exactly what a purposeful shot to the leg is. (it's why US military personnel are trained to shoot center mass, not attempt to "knee cap" some turd)
Which comes down to a difference of approach in law enforcement... Here in the US, not only would that cost an LEO their job, but probably a couple million (minimum) in a civil suit... not to mention, that's just against the Geneva fething Convention (yeah yeah... doesn't apply to police policing their own citizens)
But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up. And no, it is not against Geneva convention to not kill people.
Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go.... And the Geneva Conventions have articles in it explicitly about causing undue suffering, which is exactly what a purposeful shot to the leg is. (it's why US military personnel are trained to shoot center mass, not attempt to "knee cap" some turd)
Actually Ensis. If I was your NCO and we're in the 'Stan. If I know for a fact you consistently shoot expert at the range. We have an Insurgent making a break for it (depending on the terrain) I will tell you to shoot him in the leg.Then it is on you to to wound him in the leg. Only if the environment allows that type of action.
Now if the idiot wielding a freaking knife, fire arm, blunt weapon, edged weapon, or a device that can cause serious harm and displays a obvious threat...the idiot safety is not a concern but the safety of the LEO and others are the priority.
Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go....
Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.
And the Geneva Conventions have articles in it explicitly about causing undue suffering, which is exactly what a purposeful shot to the leg is. (it's why US military personnel are trained to shoot center mass, not attempt to "knee cap" some turd)
It is not 'undue suffering' if it saves the persons' life! And of course in a situation where the police shoots a criminal, medical attention will be quickly available.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: Death by cop scenario? Fuel for the next riot?
Spoiler:
If that is a legal shoot, I don't want' to see what illegal one looks like. These people should not have guns, let alone badges. This is just insane.
jamesk1973 wrote: You know if black people quit looking black and acting black maybe racism will go away.
This remark is clearly racism. Why you say that their 'culture' is wrongful and deserves discrimination? except the ugly facts that gangster rap usually relates to black population (despite the fact that gangsterism exists in every race, be they black (as portrayed in GTA San Andreas), whites (of different ethnicities... of course!), Asians (Triads and Yakuzas), Hispanics (Usually mexicans but H. Americans may operates in organized crime too!) Indians and so on)
The most violent, brutal, arrogant, and corrupt of the 'Gangstas' NEVER justify Nazism nor Fascism of any form.
Crimson wrote: But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up.
The system encourages police to shoot to kill because everyone should shoot to kill. If you are in legitimate danger and justified in using lethal force in self defense (and yes, shooting someone in the leg is lethal force) then shooting to kill is your only option, anything less means you're probably injured or dead. If you have time to screw around with warning shots or shooting to wound or whatever then you weren't in sufficient danger to justify lethal force and you should be facing criminal charges just like if you walked up to a random stranger and shot them in the leg. The only reason to ever shoot to wound is if you're shooting someone to force them to submit and obey you, and I really fail to see how anyone could think that this would be a good thing.
cincydooley wrote: Jesus wolf blitzer. Spoken like an idiot that's never fired a weapon before. Shoot to injure? FFS.
In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.
Got any sources on how they train for this, or showing that 'leg shots' are their actual policy?
As of 2014, there are 7700 police officers in Finland. Annually, there are a few hundred crime reports made where one of the police is the suspect and tens of cases in which police officers are convicted of crimes committed whilst on duty. Typically, these cases either concern vehicular collisions in pursuit or the excessive use of force. In 2006, a 51-year-old police officer attracted a 16-year-old girl to his house by showing her his badge, where he got her drunk and raped her twice. In 2007, an Iranian-born immigrant, Rasoul Pourak, was beaten in a cell at Pasila Police Station, Helsinki. The ill-treatment caused Pourak bruises all over the body, an open wound over his eyebrow, and a fractured skull. In addition, facial bones were broken and the victim was left permanently damaged. One guard participating in the assault was sentenced to an 80-day suspended prison sentence. In 2010, two police officers assaulted a man in a wheelchair in connection with an arrest. The police twisted the man's hands and pushed him backwards causing him to break a femur. In 2013, two policemen were sentenced fines for assault and breach of duty in connection with stamping on a man’s head onto the asphalt thrice. According to the police, the man of Romani descent resisted, yet according to eyewitnesses, the man did not resist. The event was captured in surveillance video, which was stored but somehow destroyed.
I am genuinely curious as to how they get proficient at leg shots. Of course curb stomping some poor gypsy is always an alternative, (and I'm sure there was no race issue/discrimination there right?) And seriously, hundreds of cases a year against a police force that small? Nice.
The system encourages police to shoot to kill because everyone should shoot to kill. If you are in legitimate danger and justified in using lethal force in self defense (and yes, shooting someone in the leg is lethal force) then shooting to kill is your only option, anything less means you're probably injured or dead. If you have time to screw around with warning shots or shooting to wound or whatever then you weren't in sufficient danger to justify lethal force and you should be facing criminal charges just like if you walked up to a random stranger and shot them in the leg. The only reason to ever shoot to wound is if you're shooting someone to force them to submit and obey you, and I really fail to see how anyone could think that this would be a good thing.
Shooting at someone is using lethal force, even if shooting at legs; a leg wound can kill. However, it is an absurd idea that if a leg shot (which might kill a person) would be sufficient to solve the situation (like a crazy knife wielder threatening people) you should choose a chest shot or a head shot instead (which pretty certainly will kill a person).
daedalus wrote: One of these days, duffelblog is finally going to give me an aneurysm.
Can you imagine rioting soldiers...
SAND HILL, FT. BENNING, GA - Many soldiers and family members are angry over reports of controversial remarks from the Commanding Officer of Fort Benning at a recruit graduation.
Speaking to an assembled crowd of new soldiers and their families at basic training graduation, Maj. Gen. Robert Brown was reported as “extremely hostile.”
His speech began with the “standard fluff” about duty, country, and the privileges of serving when such a small percentage of the country chooses a career in the Armed Forces. The speech took a turn, however, when the General reached a point in his remarks, obviously reused from previous ceremonies.
“Look to your left and right towards your brothers in arms,” said Brown. “You’re all now members of a proud warrior class, and heroes like your fathers before you who-”
The General stopped, took a deep breath and crumpled the sheet before flinging it to the ground.
“Feth it! I can’t read crap like this anymore. Listen up you little bald bastages.”
The newly minted soldiers — trying to stay awake throughout the ceremony — shifted uncomfortably in their seats at the sudden change in tone.
“Some of you Retards won’t make it past AIT [Advanced Individual Training]. You’ll wash out with the rest of the weakness that never should have been here in the first place. Most of you who do graduate will immediately go to combat units and deploy overseas. Many of you will threaten to kill yourselves to get out of real work, although you wont have the balls to actually do it!”
Brown’s tone got softer as he attempted to clarify.
“Don’t get me wrong here. Many of you will actually go fight and engage the enemy in close combat. For that I salute you. It takes a hard motherfether to go kill people you’ve never met just because we say so.”
The General then resumes his “motivational speech” to what he referred to as “the rest of you crap-stains.”
“You’ll most likely spend your deployment sitting on a FOB, manning guard towers, or waiting to go on patrols that get cancelled. I have a reality check for you all. Not everyone in this room is a hero. I don’t give a s**t what the beer commercials say. You drag your buddy out of a grape hut after you’ve stabbed two Taliban in the eyes with a broken MRE spoon then you’re a motherfething American Hero. You clear a trench with nothing but a sack of hand-grenades and your giant brass balls, then you’re a motherfething hero! But walking through the desert for three months without hearing a shot fired in anger and posting pictures in your combat gear doesn’t make you a gawddamned hero! I don’t care what your family says. They’re not heroes. Neither are your fething wives. Hardest job in the Army, my ass! Damn it, I’m too old for this s**t. Feth you all.”
Gen. Brown then threw up his middle finger to the crowd and stormed off the stage, hustling into his waiting staff car.
The silence after his speech was soon broken by wild applause from the assembled Drill Sergeants and Officers responsible for training the young soldiers over the previous ten weeks.
Less enthusiasm was displayed by the families and the new graduates, who stormed the stage and attempted to destroy the auditorium to express their displeasure. The ensuing riot caused over a half-million dollars in damage, and Drill Sergeants were forced to kill 11 Privates in self-defense.
An Army spokesman has said that General Brown will not be scheduled as the keynote speaker for next week’s graduation ceremony.
Daddy Frazzled -former Marine DI, would have liked that one.
jamesk1973 wrote: You know if black people quit looking black and acting black maybe racism will go away.
This remark is clearly racism. Why you say that their 'culture' is wrongful and deserves discrimination? except the ugly facts that gangster rap usually relates to black population (despite the fact that gangsterism exists in every race, be they black (as portrayed in GTA San Andreas), whites (of different ethnicities... of course!), Asians (Triads and Yakuzas), Hispanics (Usually mexicans but H. Americans may operates in organized crime too!) Indians and so on)
The most violent, brutal, arrogant, and corrupt of the 'Gangstas' NEVER justify Nazism nor Fascism of any form.
Sarcasm doesn't seem to cross borders well. I think he was employing the sarcasm bomb.
Got any sources on how they train for this, or showing that 'leg shots' are their actual policy?
The policy is to use least amount force possible. They can only shoot if there is an immediate serious danger to someone's life or health.
I am genuinely curious as to how they get proficient at leg shots.
I'd guess they practice shooting (at shooting range, not at people.)
Of course curb stomping some poor gypsy is always an alternative, (and I'm sure there was no race issue/discrimination there right?)
It is quite possible there was. I was not trying to say Finnish police is somehow perfect, they obviously aren't. In every police force there will be donkey-caves and there will me misconduct. The important part is what happens then.
And seriously, hundreds of cases a year against a police force that small? Nice.
Because any suspicion of wrongdoing actually gets investigated and people responsible get charged. Maybe you should try that too?
"Use least force possible" has no relation to "Shoot in the leg".
I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg. They all train center mass shooting, and train to shoot to kill if they feel the need to shoot at all. It makes no sense. Why fire a bullet at a limb that (1) is harder to hit, especially if the perp is moving at all and (2) may not actually stop the perp even if hit and (3) could end up killing the perp anyway?
If the situation does not call for killing, there are plenty of better options than leg shooting (pepper spray, stun guns, batons and so on). And those things don't endanger others close by either.
No, the idea of 'firing to wound' is just silly for many reasons.
cincydooley wrote: Jesus wolf blitzer. Spoken like an idiot that's never fired a weapon before. Shoot to injure? FFS.
In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.
1. I call bs.
2. See #1 above.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jamesk1973 wrote: You know if black people quit looking black and acting black maybe racism will go away.
I have no idea if this is an ironic post or comedic post or a dumbass post. I'm hoping for the first one.
Police shootings have made headlines in the US this summer. But what really happens before an officer fires his gun?
The circumstances that led to the death of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, are still unclear. While there is no question that Brown was shot six times by police officer Darren Wilson, there are conflicting stories about circumstance that lead to Wilson pulling the trigger. Was he overzealously shooting at a supplicant Brown, who was unarmed? Or was he defending himself against a violent attack from the six foot, four inch (1.93m) 18-year-old?
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."
A 1982 Supreme Court case found it illegal to shoot at fleeing felons. Now, officers can only justify firing their weapon at a civilian if they fear the loss of life or limb.
The advent of Kevlar vests and other protective technologies mean that police officers have less reason to fear for their lives than they did in the past.
As a result, the number of killings by police is down 70% in 36 years, says Candace McCoy, a professor of criminal justice at John Jay College in New York. Only a small percentage of the nation's 500,000 police officers are involved in shooting. Most retire without ever firing their gun in the line of duty.
Still, she says, officers are 600 times more likely than a non-officer to kill a citizen, and about 400 people are killed a year by police.
AUGUST 19: Police charge into the media work area with rifles at ready as they try to control demonstrators protesting the killing of teenager Michael Brown on August 19, 2014 in Ferguson, Missour In Ferguson, police have wielded rifles as well as guns that fire rubber bullets and beanbags
While there is no national standard, the state rules and regulations regarding officer's use of deadly force is mostly consistent throughout the country.
Officers are trained on a continuum of force, run through simulations, and constantly required to re-certify in firearms safety,
There are drills and standards and classes. But in the seconds before an officer pulls the trigger, nothing is orderly.
"The officer isn't going through any checklist," says Pasco. "At that point they have to make a split-second decision."
The moment may come after hours of an escalating situation or it might come with little warning.
"You always have to react to a suspects' actions. That's the tough part about it," says Robert Todd Christensen, a use-of-force instructor at Kalamazoo Valley Community College Police Academy in Michigan.
"Cops are always playing the defence, rather than the offense, when it comes to force,"
At that point, the officer has to rely on his training and instincts while trying to control his emotions.
line
"There's an adrenaline that kicks in and there's a split-second syndrome," says McCoy. "Your judgment is not the same as those of us sitting at desks thinking rationally."
Training helps, she says, but it's not perfect.
When law enforcement officials do shoot, they shoot to kill - a measure designed in part to reduce gunplay.
"You hear about 'shoot to wound' by well-meaning people who want to prevent the death of suspects," says Ms McCoy. "That's a very bad idea."
Doing so, she says, would make firing the weapon a less momentous act.
"By saying a police officer must draw the gun only to protect life, you reduce police shootings."
Shooting to wound is also impractical because in the seconds before an officer fires his gun, his or her aim may be anything but true.
"Your heart rate is way up above 200, and you have tunnel vision, you can't even see your sights," says Mr Christensen, referring to the guides on the gun that help locate a target.
"Hit the kneecap? You can't even see a kneecap," he says.
Instead, officers are taught to aim at "centre mass" - the centre of a suspect's chest. That provides a broad target and one that's most likely to eliminate the threat posed by the suspect. It's also most likely to kill.
After a citizen is shot by an officer, that officer becomes the target of an internal investigation, and can be the investigated by the federal government or other outside agencies.
In the large majority of cases, no charges are brought against the officer.
That's in part because in a case of reality versus perception, the police officer gets the benefit of the doubt.
"Maybe he wasn't in danger, but if he reasonably believes he was, he would be justified in shooting," says Ms McCay.
That the same benefit of the doubt is not afforded to innocent men shot by the police is the source of much of the tension in Ferguson, even as the actual details of the shooting are still unclear.
But even if charges are never filed, the officer is not totally unburdened.
"Interview a police officer who has shot someone you will get a sad and damaged person," says Ms McCay.
The use-of-force continuum
Officers are trained to escalate force in response to the situation on the ground. Here are examples of that continuum, abridged from guidelines by the National Institute of Justice.
Officer Presence The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation. Officers' attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.
Verbalisation Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as "Let me see your identification." Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance.
Empty-Hand Control Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation, either grabbing and holding a suspect or using punches and kicks..
Less-Lethal Methods Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation, such as blunt impact tools like batons or chemicals like tear gas
Lethal Force Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.
Derp... Methinks the two officers involved in the Kajieme Powell (the guy who advanced with a knife) shooting are in deep, deep trouble.
(I originally had the story, which includes a video linked, but it is the video of the actual shooting, so I wouldnt want sensitive people to click and see. If interested the videos is available on Huffington Post. It does not correlate with the details of the story given by the police department, and its extremely hard to see how deadly force could be construed as justified).
jasper76 wrote: Derp... Methinks the two officers involved in the Kajieme Powell (the guy who is said to have advanced with a knife) shooting are in deep, deep trouble.
(I originally had the story, which includes a video linked, but it is the video of the actual shooting, so I wouldnt want sensitive people to click and see. If interested the videos is available on Huffington Post. It does not correlate with the details of the story given by the police department, and its extremely hard to see how deadly force could be construed as justified).
Not really. You can't see the guys right hand clearly or his left hand at all, and he was very close. From the top of the wall where he was stood it is quite plausible he could have leaped down at the officer getting out of the passenger side. The distance is arguing over him being 4 feet or 6 feet away and you can't see if he had a knife or not.
I did hear them say "drop the knife", and the bystanders were telling him to drop it as well.
I've watched this like 10 times now. I don't know what to think about it.
FWIW, CNN has a better video, the guy is holding something. There was really no lunge or charge, arms are down, but he was advancing at a slow, steady rate when the first shot was fired. I imagine in real time from the perspective of those involved this stuff happens in the blink of an eye, accompanied by rush of testosterone.
Crimson wrote: In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.
Police marksman, or regular officer on patrol?
Pistol or rifle?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up. And no, it is not against Geneva convention to not kill people.
It could be a difference in jurisprudence. In the US use of force is justified when an officer's life (or another's life) is in danger, and/or there is a fear of imminent harm. Firing a warning shot, or trying to wound someone often does not legally match that criteria.
Talk of the Geneva Convention is a misnomer as it applies to warfare between the High Contracting Parties and not how they police their citizens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: If that is a legal shoot, I don't want' to see what illegal one looks like. These people should not have guns, let alone badges. This is just insane.
Armed man approaches police. Police tell him to stop. Armed man refuses. Armed man continues to advance. Police issue further warning. Armed man gets within 21 foot and continues to advance. Police shoot. Justified use of force.
Thinking the police did anything wrong is insane. The armed man placed the officers in a position where they were at risk of imminent harm and they acted accordingly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: "Use least force possible" has no relation to "Shoot in the leg".
I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg. They all train center mass shooting, and train to shoot to kill if they feel the need to shoot at all. It makes no sense. Why fire a bullet at a limb that (1) is harder to hit, especially if the perp is moving at all and (2) may not actually stop the perp even if hit and (3) could end up killing the perp anyway?
If the situation does not call for killing, there are plenty of better options than leg shooting (pepper spray, stun guns, batons and so on). And those things don't endanger others close by either.
No, the idea of 'firing to wound' is just silly for many reasons.
Adrenaline dump, unfamiliarity with a sidearm, heavy trigger, and/or other factors may have played a role in where the rounds hit - look at the Brown shooting we are talking about; the majority of the rounds hit his limbs when that is not recognized police protocol.
Crimson, your comments are pretty laughable and much like Don Lemon, clearly come from someone that's never actually fired or handled a firearm. Your aim is to stop someone attacking you. In the Brown case, let's pretend the LEO was trying to "shoot to injure". The arm shots clearly didn't stop him.
The other shoot is, IMO, the definition of a clean shoot.
Crimson wrote: In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.
I can't speak to Finland. but in the United States, the average police officer is a terrible shot. Most policemen never fire their gun in the line of duty other than to qualify, and they only qualify infrequently - once every 6 months for NYPD, much less often elsewhere- and the qualifications are pretty loose. 50 rounds at 7 yards, you need to hit 35, stuff like that. We can bemoan the state of it, but that's the way it is.
If you use your firearm in the line of duty at all, then you have decided lethal force is called for because either yourself or someone else is in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. In that situation, there can be no half measures, and trying to shoot in a fashion other than shooting to kill merely puts your own or someone else's life at risk. Either you're shooting to kill, or you should not be shooting at all - that is US doctrine. I can't see it changing anytime soon, nor should it in my opinion.
cincydooley wrote: Crimson, your comments are pretty laughable and much like Don Lemon, clearly come from someone that's never actually fired or handled a firearm.
Dangerous assumptions to make about a guy living in the 5th highest guns-to-people country in the world. I once got told by Nuggz I should re-evaluate my manhood because of my fear of guns, because I made an offhand comment that was interpreted as antigun.
CptJake wrote: "Use least force possible" has no relation to "Shoot in the leg".
I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg. They all train center mass shooting, and train to shoot to kill if they feel the need to shoot at all. It makes no sense. Why fire a bullet at a limb that (1) is harder to hit, especially if the perp is moving at all and (2) may not actually stop the perp even if hit and (3) could end up killing the perp anyway?
If the situation does not call for killing, there are plenty of better options than leg shooting (pepper spray, stun guns, batons and so on). And those things don't endanger others close by either.
No, the idea of 'firing to wound' is just silly for many reasons.
I'm going to have to side with Cpt Jake on this one until I see some real numbers.
The "shoot to disarm" or "Shoot for the legs" is an idea given to us by hollywood. Everything I've read says that in a real firing situation, with adrenaline pumping, it's hard enough to hit anything, much less having any chance when aiming for the leg.
The only variant I've seen on where to shoot is that I think (I don't have the info at hand) some agencies and countries have a preference for training their troops shooting at the center of the chest or the lower center of the abodmen. I think the preference for Abdomen by some groups may have to do with the stopping power of doing serious damage to the hips and pelvis, and possibly less fatalities, but I don't recall. Both methods are relatively similar in terms of being "center mass"
That said, I've not heard any hard evidence regarding agencies actually training for -or having better results with- aiming at extremities. Using a firearm is using lethal force and should only be used when lethal force is called for.
Actually, shooting lower abdomen is a technique not to cause less fatalities, but to destroy the pelvis (lots of major arteries there so it won't decrease fatalities) and thereby destroy the perp's ability to stand/move. It has become more popular because of the proliferation of body armor. Shoot some dude with a plate carrier center mass and he still shoots back.
cincydooley wrote: Crimson, your comments are pretty laughable and much like Don Lemon, clearly come from someone that's never actually fired or handled a firearm. Your aim is to stop someone attacking you. In the Brown case, let's pretend the LEO was trying to "shoot to injure". The arm shots clearly didn't stop him.
The other shoot is, IMO, the definition of a clean shoot.
For everyone else who also did not make the Don Lemon connection immediately
He thinks the difference between automatic and semi-automatic is only semantics
Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go....
Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.
Well, "most" Law Enforcement jurisdictions/precincts issue non-lethal weapons, like mace/pepper spray, tazers/stun guns, etc. and unless it's a very small town, it's extremely rare than an officer is by him/herself. As a result, if the situation warrants it, they go for the non-lethal methods of subduing and detaining people.
It's a more proper way of "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to "hey, let's shoot a guy in the leg, now we have to arrest him, get him to the hospital where they're going to have to remove the bullet, repair the tissue and give him a bed with guards while he recovers enough to get into court"
Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go....
Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.
Well, "most" Law Enforcement jurisdictions/precincts issue non-lethal weapons, like mace/pepper spray, tazers/stun guns, etc. and unless it's a very small town, it's extremely rare than an officer is by him/herself. As a result, if the situation warrants it, they go for the non-lethal methods of subduing and detaining people.
It's a more proper way of "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to "hey, let's shoot a guy in the leg, now we have to arrest him, get him to the hospital where they're going to have to remove the bullet, repair the tissue and give him a bed with guards while he recovers enough to get into court"
What do you mean by an officer being by him/herself?
Because around here, rarely is there more than one officer in a car, occasionally an officer will have a reserve with them. Sure backup is only a few minutes away, but a LOT can happen in a few minutes. And I am not in the middle of no where, I am less than 5 minutes from the center of a major metro area. Minneapolis may actually use two person cars, I don't live close to there so I never see their cars, and the last time I talked to a Minneapolis officer, the conversation was avoiding police chitchat
Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go....
Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.
Well, "most" Law Enforcement jurisdictions/precincts issue non-lethal weapons, like mace/pepper spray, tazers/stun guns, etc. and unless it's a very small town, it's extremely rare than an officer is by him/herself. As a result, if the situation warrants it, they go for the non-lethal methods of subduing and detaining people.
It's a more proper way of "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to "hey, let's shoot a guy in the leg, now we have to arrest him, get him to the hospital where they're going to have to remove the bullet, repair the tissue and give him a bed with guards while he recovers enough to get into court"
What do you mean by an officer being by him/herself?
Because around here, rarely is there more than one officer in a car, occasionally an officer will have a reserve with them. Sure backup is only a few minutes away, but a LOT can happen in a few minutes. And I am not in the middle of no where, I am less than 5 minutes from the center of a major metro area. Minneapolis may actually use two person cars, I don't live close to there so I never see their cars, and the last time I talked to a Minneapolis officer, the conversation was avoiding police chitchat
Indeed. I rarely see a police unit here with two people in it. I did in LA, and can see that in higher crime areas, but this is effectively a small town.
A lot more stories can be added to the end of the list of officers being killed during a stop from a minor violation. If the officer didn't use his firearm, it is very possible that his name would be added the list, and the story never would have made it to the national media.
A lot more stories can be added to the end of the list of officers being killed during a stop from a minor violation. If the officer didn't use his firearm, it is very possible that his name would be added the list, and the story never would have made it to the national media.
Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go....
Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.
Well, "most" Law Enforcement jurisdictions/precincts issue non-lethal weapons, like mace/pepper spray, tazers/stun guns, etc. and unless it's a very small town, it's extremely rare than an officer is by him/herself. As a result, if the situation warrants it, they go for the non-lethal methods of subduing and detaining people.
It's a more proper way of "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to "hey, let's shoot a guy in the leg, now we have to arrest him, get him to the hospital where they're going to have to remove the bullet, repair the tissue and give him a bed with guards while he recovers enough to get into court"
I live in a fairly sizable area and I have never seen police paired up in vehicles unless one is in training.
I live in a fairly sizable area and I have never seen police paired up in vehicles unless one is in training.
STL has them one to a car. I can't think of a situation I've ever seen them doubled up. Post-Ferguson, I've seen them patrolling two cars at a time, that is, one car as a close tail to the second. Not sure if that's changed since Gencon.
Some of the wealthier/touristy areas of town also employ private security that drive around in what are basically police cars. I've never actually seen those guys close up enough to know if they carry guns on them. I assume that, at least in Soulard, they mostly watch for drunk drivers and then detain/call the real police.
I think the entire media portrayal is a shame. To easily did they claim "racial issues"
Not long ago a college student was shot dead by a LEO because they talked back to the officer, it was caught on the officers car dash cam. The person was parked where they shouldn't be, the officer asked them to step out. The person did, the LEO questioned them, and they replied "No, what are you going to do? Shoot me?" The officer drew their gun and shot their full clip into the person. Race never came up, both were Caucasian.
In florida LEO showed up to a residence, broke in the door without knocking and shot dead an unarmed octogenarian woman. They arrived at the wrong house, the house they wanted was across the street. All involved were Caucasian.
I don't even follow the news and can think of a few other instances I have heard of this.
non subjective facts in Ferguson such as "most of the population is african american" "LEO arrest two times as many african americans as caucasians" In 2010 67% of the pop was african american in fergusan, if LEO are arresting twice as many african americans as caucasians than they are arresting the same % amount from each ethnic group according to 4th grade math. Of course the media didn't bother connecting this information because race card = news time = ratings = $ The media also implies the local police are racist because they are mostly caucasian. This is not an issue with race, but more likely an issue with application. If they showed the applicants per year, by ethnicity, versus the amount of officers hired that would be a relavent stat. As the local mayor has stated they have a hard time finding african american applicants to join the police there. Not a race issue.
the perp was obviously not running from the officer with hands up surrendering before the final shot if all the medical examiners found the shots to be coming from the front, unless the officer has magic JFK bullets that warped around the suspect and hit them from the front.
At 18, if you rob a store and then proceed to walk down the middle of the road you are 1+ of 3 things.
1- Beyond mentally slowed
2- Really really high
3- You have already committed many crimes in your life and do not fear reprisal from LEO and think you are unlikely to be caught.
Intelligent criminals, and I mean a very basically intelligent criminal, avoids further chance to be caught after committing crimes. Like walking on a sidewalk, or walking somewhere that is less travelled. Not the middle of a busy street that is blocking traffic which is why the perp was originally pulled over.
all 3 of the items above for reasons the perp might walk in the middle of the road blocking traffic after committing a crime are the same reasons why the perp might actually charge at a LEO and assault them with intent to disarm.
they should release the toxicology reports of michael brown, as well as open his juvie record. He most likely has one, not based on ethnicity but based on that he committed a crime, and really didn't care that he might get caught.
the real possible issue here is that of possible police brutality and use of excessive or unneccesary force. Which most likely will not be investigated when its overshadowed by public media "race card" frenzy.
People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.
CaulynDarr wrote: People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.
Residential streets are for cars. Not for people to walk in the middle of...
CaulynDarr wrote: People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.
Residential streets are for cars. Not for people to walk in the middle of...
Streets are for cars period
Side walks are for walkers only
Cyclist belongs on the streets
One walking down a street in a residential area might meet a Senior with dementia thinking he/she is on I-70
CaulynDarr wrote: People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.
There IS a generally accepted side of a road without sidewalks to walk down.
If no sidewalks exist on the road, it is recommended to walk facing oncoming traffic on the same side of the road as the oncoming traffic. Also, you should get as far to the side of the road as possible to provide additional space between you and oncoming cars.
I'm not sure how that stacks up legally, but I would be intrigued to hear that it is effectively illegal to travel somewhere by foot.
300.405. Pedestrians walking along roadways. (1) Where sidewalks are provided it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. (2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic, which may approach from the opposite direction.
People should know their local jurisdiction in regards to walking/biking laws as they vary state to state.
CaulynDarr wrote: People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.
Residential streets are for cars. Not for people to walk in the middle of...
Streets are for cars period
Side walks are for walkers only
Cyclist belongs on the streets
One walking down a street in a residential area might meet a Senior with dementia thinking he/she is on I-70
So, I take it you've never been in a suburban midwest neighborhood? Basically people walk in them. As there is no other place to walk other than people lawns.
And middle of the street is a very imprecise term. Some people use it to mean anywhere in the street .
300.405. Pedestrians walking along roadways. (1) Where sidewalks are provided it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. (2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic, which may approach from the opposite direction.
People should know their local jurisdiction in regards to walking/biking laws as they vary state to state.
I had only seen pictures from the other direction, and didn't see the sidewalk. Still, it's a fairly common thing to see people walking on streets like this in the St. Louis area, city ordinance or no. You're all telling me you've never done this in your own neighborhood? I find that hard to believe.
I greatly appreciate the men and women of the Missouri National Guard for successfully carrying out the specific, limited mission of protecting the Unified Command Center so that law enforcement officers could focus on the important work of increasing communication within the community, restoring trust, and protecting the people and property of Ferguson. As we continue to see improvement, I have ordered the Missouri National Guard to begin a systematic process of withdrawing from the City of Ferguson.
CaulynDarr wrote: People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.
Residential streets are for cars. Not for people to walk in the middle of...
Streets are for cars period
Side walks are for walkers only
Cyclist belongs on the streets
One walking down a street in a residential area might meet a Senior with dementia thinking he/she is on I-70
So, I take it you've never been in a suburban midwest neighborhood? Basically people walk in them. As there is no other place to walk other than people lawns.
And middle of the street is a very imprecise term. Some people use it to mean anywhere in the street .
Where I live you walk down the side of the road if there are no sidewalks. Note however, there WERE sidewalks. He was just acting like a
300.405. Pedestrians walking along roadways. (1) Where sidewalks are provided it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. (2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic, which may approach from the opposite direction.
People should know their local jurisdiction in regards to walking/biking laws as they vary state to state.
Clearly he was being a pain enough to have a cop actually stop. Regardless the cop did stop (which, amazingly they can do) and then everything went badly.
Anyone see the video of the guy with the knife the police shot a few miles away? That was just crazy. He was actually trying to flank them.
If a cop ask you to move to sidewalk while walking down the middle of the street would you continue walking down the middle of the street or make a 90 degree turn to go to closest sidewalk and more likely move back to the middle of the street when LEO is out of sight?
After committing a series of crimes 10 minutes prior at a quiktrip and currently walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic behind myself, which is reported, if an officer were to approach me in their vehicle and ask me to get off the street, I would have my friend answer "but we are just walking down the street our grandmothers house. We are almost there so we are just going to keep walking."
If the officer dared to demand I get to the sidewalk I would then charge them and attack them in their car.
Should anything bad happen to myself, my friend will inform the media that it was race related and completely unjustified.
blaktoof wrote: After committing a series of crimes 10 minutes prior at a quiktrip and currently walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic behind myself, which is reported, if an officer were to approach me in their vehicle and ask me to get off the street, I would have my friend answer "but we are just walking down the street our grandmothers house. We are almost there so we are just going to keep walking."
If the officer dared to demand I get to the sidewalk I would then charge them and attack them in their car.
Should anything bad happen to myself, my friend will inform the media that it was race related and completely unjustified.
I only know of one Strong Arm Robbery. What other crimes did he do prior to that?
blaktoof wrote: After committing a series of crimes 10 minutes prior at a quiktrip and currently walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic behind myself, which is reported, if an officer were to approach me in their vehicle and ask me to get off the street, I would have my friend answer "but we are just walking down the street our grandmothers house. We are almost there so we are just going to keep walking."
If the officer dared to demand I get to the sidewalk I would then charge them and attack them in their car.
Should anything bad happen to myself, my friend will inform the media that it was race related and completely unjustified.
I only know of one Strong Arm Robbery. What other crimes did he do prior to that?
he was wearing flip flops with white socks. Thats a Fashion Felony.
EDIT: to the above Huey Newton Club. Huey was a founder of the Black Panthers, and where you get the party dance along song "Free Huey!"
Eilif wrote: "Use least force possible" has no relation to "Shoot in the leg".
I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg.
blaktoof wrote: After committing a series of crimes 10 minutes prior at a quiktrip and currently walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic behind myself, which is reported, if an officer were to approach me in their vehicle and ask me to get off the street, I would have my friend answer "but we are just walking down the street our grandmothers house. We are almost there so we are just going to keep walking."
If the officer dared to demand I get to the sidewalk I would then charge them and attack them in their car.
Should anything bad happen to myself, my friend will inform the media that it was race related and completely unjustified.
I only know of one Strong Arm Robbery. What other crimes did he do prior to that?
robbery and assault are two separate crimes, although both charges often occur at the same time. We could throw in jaywalking, but most officers tend to not bother.
blaktoof wrote: After committing a series of crimes 10 minutes prior at a quiktrip and currently walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic behind myself, which is reported, if an officer were to approach me in their vehicle and ask me to get off the street, I would have my friend answer "but we are just walking down the street our grandmothers house. We are almost there so we are just going to keep walking."
If the officer dared to demand I get to the sidewalk I would then charge them and attack them in their car.
Should anything bad happen to myself, my friend will inform the media that it was race related and completely unjustified.
I only know of one Strong Arm Robbery. What other crimes did he do prior to that?
robbery and assault are two separate crimes, although both charges often occur at the same time. We could throw in jaywalking, but most officers tend to not bother.
I'm tracking the same but you making it sound like he has a criminal record of incidents or something
Edit
Kronk you need to loot faster I can only swing so many times at the Zombies in The Last Stand
cincydooley wrote: So I'm confused. Open carry demonstrations are okay when it's black panthers doing it?
Should I default to white privilege again?
If you conflate all black organizations as Black Panthers you might have have trouble understanding the problem. You don't have to default to white privilege, like Palmolive, you're soaking in it.
Eilif wrote: "Use least force possible" has no relation to "Shoot in the leg".
I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg.
Germany
Do you have any source for this whatsoever? Because as far as I know this is not true.
If you conflate all black organizations as Black Panthers you might have have trouble understanding the problem. You don't have to default to white privilege, like Palmolive, you're soaking in it.
$100,000 raised for officer wilson says he isn't really too far off
blaktoof wrote: After committing a series of crimes 10 minutes prior at a quiktrip and currently walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic behind myself, which is reported, if an officer were to approach me in their vehicle and ask me to get off the street, I would have my friend answer "but we are just walking down the street our grandmothers house. We are almost there so we are just going to keep walking."
If the officer dared to demand I get to the sidewalk I would then charge them and attack them in their car.
Should anything bad happen to myself, my friend will inform the media that it was race related and completely unjustified.
I only know of one Strong Arm Robbery. What other crimes did he do prior to that?
he was wearing flip flops with white socks. Thats a Fashion Felony.
EDIT: to the above Huey Newton Club. Huey was a founder of the Black Panthers, and where you get the party dance along song "Free Huey!"
ahh Huey newton.
its ashame the african american community has had so few upstanding role models, huey newton of course not being one himself.
Huey newton admitted after his release to fellow BPP member robert trivers, that he did in fact muder officer john frey and then claim it was self defense to add fire to their movement.
the BPP also had other amazing members like eldridge cleaver, a multiply convicted rapist, as well as being a well known racist. He later became a conservative republican, a crack addit, a founding member of "christlam" and something called "the guardians of the sperm" as well as creating a fashion line with extra material in the crotch area always because he was obsessed with mens crotches.
the BPP is a really good organization with lots of people who should look up to it.
I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg. They all train center mass shooting, and train to shoot to kill if they feel the need to shoot at all. It makes no sense. Why fire a bullet at a limb that (1) is harder to hit, especially if the perp is moving at all and (2) may not actually stop the perp even if hit and (3) could end up killing the perp anyway?
Ok, I compiled a list of every case the Finnish police shooting a person I could find from last twenty years (there are of course more, but these are the ones I could find details on.)
Spoiler:
1994. A man threatens a taxi driver with a gun and barricades himself in a house. The police sieges the house for two days, while the shoots wildly from the house, and eventually sets the house on fire. Police shoots the man in the leg, but he still wont surrender. The police kills the man with a shot in the head.
1995. A man suspected from taxi robbery point a gun at the police that come to arrest him. The police shoots him dead. Turns out the man's weapon was a toy.
1997.A man armed with a shot gun shoots wildly and refuses to surrender, the police shoots the man, killing him.
2000. The police try to apprehend a man escaped from a mental hospital. The man is armed with a billhook and charges the police. He is shot once in the leg. When he tries to get up, another police officer shoots him again in the leg. The man is taken to hospital, but later dies. The police officer who shot the second shot is convicted of excessive use of force and negligent homicide.
2006. A man has several guns and starts to shoot wildly in a populated area he threatens to shoot the police and refuses to give up his weapons. The police shoot him in the leg, he survives.
2007. A man randomly attacks another man on a busy street, and stabs him lethally with a knife. The man behaves aggressively and there are plenty of people present. The police shoots the man in the leg, he survives.
2007. A man armed with a billhook behaves aggressively, He refuses to give up his weapon and eventually charges toward the police. The police shoots the man in the leg, he survives.
2007. The police chase a suspect who barricades himself in a house. When the police try to approach, the man threatens them with a gun, The police try to shoot him in the leg, but miss. The man surrenders.
2008. A man holds a woman hostage, threatens to rape her. When the police breaks in the apartment, the man holds a knife on the woman's throat and refuses to surrender. The police shoots the man once in the arm, he survives.
2009. A man has barricaded himself in a house and has shot and seriously injured another person who is with him in the house. He refuses to give up his gun and behaves aggressively. The police kills the man with a single shot.
2010. A drunk driver with truck causes serious danger. The police tries to stop the man with a spike strip, but the man continues to drive even his tires are flat. Eventually a police car that tried to stop the truck ends up being dragged in the front of the truck. The police shoots two shots at the man, one hit and wound him (he survives.) The police officer firing the shots is suspected of excessive use of force (I don't know whether he was eventually convicted.)
2013. A man armed with a gun shoots a woman in a busy harbour, killing her. The police approach the man, but he refuses to surrender. The police shoot him once in the leg. The man shoots himself and dies.
2013. A man armed with a knife and a gun is spotted on a busy street. The police confronts him, but the man refuses to give up his weapons, and starts to approach the police. The police shoots him once in the leg. The man survives.
This of course is not a complete list. There a few cases (1-4) of the police shooting at a person per year, usually non lethally. The police has killed three people on this century (My list has more than that, as it has cases from 90's too.)
So either, the Finnish police are amazingly bad shots (and try to conserve the bullets by usually shooting a single shot) and fail to hit the centre of the mass and accidentally hit a leg instead, or they're trained differently. The American style 'empty a clip in the suspects chest' shootings just do not happen. Now you can question the wisdom of this policy, but to me it perfectly clear which approach I prefer. I think Kajieme Powell and Michael Brown would've preferred that approach as well.
cincydooley wrote: So I'm confused. Open carry demonstrations are okay when it's black panthers doing it?
Should I default to white privilege again?
you should check the facebooks or the myspaces or the youtubes first
I'm aware of the history. And I'll defend their right.
I wonder how many restaurants will start banning guns as a result of this particular open carry (being that it's a primarily a racially motivated one).
cincydooley wrote: So I'm confused. Open carry demonstrations are okay when it's black panthers doing it?
Should I default to white privilege again?
you should check the facebooks or the myspaces or the youtubes first
I'm aware of the history. And I'll defend their right.
I wonder how many restaurants will start banning guns as a result of this particular open carry (being that it's a primarily a racially motivated one).
You're on the clock, chipotle.
if someone open carries in a restaurant the best thing you can do is pretend freak out, and yell "they have guns, lets get out of here" or just rush out without saying anything.
Do not go back, do not pay for your food or service. You will not be in trouble and no charges will be brought against you, if asked why you didn't pay, you ask why would you risk your life- doesn't the restaurant care more about the safety of their patrons than the 8.99 burger?
I live in a fairly sizable area and I have never seen police paired up in vehicles unless one is in training.
It could just be that I only really "see" the police when they are in an active situation, in which I usually will see 2-4+ vehicles, and make a positive ID on 3+ officers.
Crimson wrote: The American style 'empty a clip in the suspects chest' shootings just do not happen.
If you're saying that more isn't better you had better get RIGHT OUT OF HERE
UK police firearms training teaches the use and discharge of firearms to "remove the threat" rather than to kill, but this is normally by shooting the centre of mass. However I believe there is advice about shooting legs or head of a possible suicide bomber, to avoid shooting a possible suicide vest. Also the UK police also do not have an "empty a clip" policy, however due to the very nature of our fire arms officers they are much better shots than the average US office, or officer in any country where guns are carried by all or most officers.
if someone open carries in a restaurant the best thing you can do is pretend freak out, and yell "they have guns, lets get out of here" or just rush out without saying anything.
Do not go back, do not pay for your food or service. You will not be in trouble and no charges will be brought against you, if asked why you didn't pay, you ask why would you risk your life- doesn't the restaurant care more about the safety of their patrons than the 8.99 burger?
the restaurant will then ban open carry.
there were also people telling idiots that they left their aimpoint on to get them to shoulder and look across streets and such with their rifles.
Crimson wrote: The American style 'empty a clip in the suspects chest' shootings just do not happen.
If you're saying that more isn't better you had better get RIGHT OUT OF HERE
UK police firearms training teaches the use and discharge of firearms to "remove the threat" rather than to kill, but this is normally by shooting the centre of mass. However I believe there is advice about shooting legs or head of a possible suicide bomber, to avoid shooting a possible suicide vest. Also the UK police also do not have an "empty a clip" policy, however due to the very nature of our fire arms officers they are much better shots than the average US office, or officer in any country where guns are carried by all or most officers.
I don't believe the "empty clip" is a policy per se. It's, you keep shooting until the target stops being a threat. (which may necessitate emptying your clip)
Crimson wrote: The American style 'empty a clip in the suspects chest' shootings just do not happen.
If you're saying that more isn't better you had better get RIGHT OUT OF HERE
UK police firearms training teaches the use and discharge of firearms to "remove the threat" rather than to kill, but this is normally by shooting the centre of mass. However I believe there is advice about shooting legs or head of a possible suicide bomber, to avoid shooting a possible suicide vest. Also the UK police also do not have an "empty a clip" policy, however due to the very nature of our fire arms officers they are much better shots than the average US office, or officer in any country where guns are carried by all or most officers.
Thats gneerally US police and in fact US law in most jurisidictions. Shoot only until the threat is stopped.
Sometimes taking the finger off the trigger can be delayed of course.
I don't believe the "empty clip" is a policy per se. It's, you keep shooting until the target stops being a threat. (which may necessitate emptying your clip)
That is how it is, however even with a fatal shot, it takes about half a second to a second for someone to go down plus you know, a half second or so as they crumple, since its taught that you just keep on shooting until the target is down its extremely rare that the mag isn't empty, I remember ~15 years ago there was about 50 shots fired at one guy from 3 officers (one reloaded and kept firing because he was still standing), like in the video posted earlier the guy is slowly moving at me, he isn't going to stop, sure, one to the gut as I back away, not like nine to the chest even if the first one killed him, to observers it looks like a firing squad not a takedown (and it pretty much is).
I don't believe the "empty clip" is a policy per se. It's, you keep shooting until the target stops being a threat. (which may necessitate emptying your clip)
That is how it is, however even with a fatal shot, it takes about half a second to a second for someone to go down plus you know, a half second or so as they crumple, since its taught that you just keep on shooting until the target is down its extremely rare that the mag isn't empty, I remember ~15 years ago there was about 50 shots fired at one guy from 3 officers (one reloaded and kept firing because he was still standing), like in the video posted earlier the guy is slowly moving at me, he isn't going to stop, sure, one to the gut as I back away, not like nine to the chest even if the first one killed him, to observers it looks like a firing squad not a takedown (and it pretty much is).
Grundz... I think we're an agreement.
I'm arguing whether or not there's an official policy to "empty the clip/magazine" to stop the threat.
Those cops didn't empty gak. There were 12 total rounds fired by both of them. Their magazines most likely hold between 14-17 rounds, assuming they're carrying Glock 19s or Baretta 92s like many LEOs carry.
Just to be clear, I don't have a clue what US police police is. I was just giving details of UK police training as another European country against what Crimson said.
I'm arguing whether or not there's an official policy to "empty the clip/magazine" to stop the threat.
Right, we're too lawsuit happy for that, there is an official policy that usually ends in an empty mag and/or a dead person, lots of rounds being fired is coincidental,
Crimson wrote: Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.
in all likely hood, the officer has no IDEA he has even hit his target until he crumples to the ground, which can take some time. Especially after a serious head injury.
even in your finnish examples, many were fatal (even leg shots) and it didnt actually stop the guy in many cases.
those are also very isolated incidents.
If.his face was really cracked, all bets are off. I would reasonably expect if anyone had their head busted, they would unload everything they had, if for no other reason then pure fear.
Crimson wrote: Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is completely wrong.
It is entirely a question of how valuable the shootee's life is in comparison to how much danger the shooter is in. since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!" the person getting shots life is basically worthless, as shown by handcuffing him (assuming he isn't dead in which case it seems stupid) and then not rendering aid as he dies (hopeless or not). I'm guessing you don't care a whole lot about these people.
Since arrest rates of minorities is much, much higher (for reasons and things), and you dont care/encourage excessive force against them, can you not see why they think this is a race issue?
Hordini wrote: Hey Grundz, sorry, you might have missed my post earlier, but do you have a source for your claim that Germany trains its officers to take leg shots?
My time station in Germany.
If Polizi says "Halt!"
You become a statue
If not two things can happen
The spring loaded night stick they have if swung once it'll hit you 50-60 times
or
they shoot you
Crimson wrote: Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is completely wrong.
It is entirely a question of how valuable the shootee's life
Spoiler:
is in comparison to how much danger the shooter is in. since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!" the person getting shots life is basically worthless, as shown by handcuffing him (assuming he isn't dead in which case it seems stupid) and then not rendering aid as he dies (hopeless or not). I'm guessing you don't care a whole lot about these people.
Since arrest rates of minorities is much, much higher (for reasons and things), and you dont care/encourage excessive force against them, can you not see why they think this is a race issue?
right, im sure the first thing that is supposed to be going through the cops head is "I wonder how valuable this person, who just broke my face, life is. 4 bullets? ten? six? yeah, six sounds good, I think on the manual black guys get six bullets"
Being shot isn't like the movies where a guy takes one bullet and goes flying 10ft from the impact. There are plenty of cases where people are shot and don't even realize it at the time. Often it takes being hit several times before the damage registers with the body. Add in the influence of drugs or adrenaline and people can often sustain a lot of injury and not feel a thing even if they are fatally wounded at the time.
During a fire fight one of my friends was shot a total of five times while serving in Iraq, not only did he survive but he managed to keep returning fire for a bit. (An AK-47 is significantly more damaging than a 9mm pistol btw) That obviously doesn't happen in every case, but people have been known to survive being repeatedly shot and just one round doesn't always immobilize the target, particularly when it's coming from a pistol.
Crimson wrote: Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is completely wrong.
It is entirely a question of how valuable the shootee's life is in comparison to how much danger the shooter is in.
Erm... wut?
If you're attacked and you're packing heat, who the feth cares "how valuable the shootee's life is".
since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!"
Culture?!? You're not making sense.
the person getting shots life is basically worthless, as shown by handcuffing him (assuming he isn't dead in which case it seems stupid) and then not rendering aid as he dies (hopeless or not).
I guess you don't understand the SOP in law enforcement.
I'm guessing you don't care a whole lot about these people.
How do you come to this conclusion?
Since arrest rates of minorities is much, much higher (for reasons and things), and you dont care/encourage excessive force against them, can you not see why they think this is a race issue?
stanman wrote: Being shot isn't like the movies where a guy takes one bullet and goes flying 10ft from the impact. There are plenty of cases where people are shot and don't even realize it at the time. Often it takes being hit several times before the damage registers with the body. Add in the influence of drugs or adrenaline and people can often sustain a lot of injury and not feel a thing even if they are fatally wounded at the time.
During a fire fight one of my friends was shot a total of five times while serving in Iraq, not only did he survive but he managed to keep returning fire for a bit. (An AK-47 is significantly more damaging than a 9mm pistol btw) That obviously doesn't happen in every case, but people have been known to survive being repeatedly shot and just one round doesn't always immobilize the target, particularly when it's coming from a pistol.
not to detract from the fact that your friend was shot but aren't police ammo usually hollow points? from what i understand those are designed to just do massive amount of damage to soft targets vs Aks which i dont even know if they come in hollow points (goes straight through rather than explode within the target. (honest question)
since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!"
Culture?!? You're not making sense.
Yeah, you can disassemble what was said, but you're just un-contexting it.
Yes culture, in other countries the law enforcement may/may not believe the public is the enemy, the US law has for quite a while, with exceptions. If you'd like a definition of culture google may be able to help you, but looking at people who break the law as subhuman is pretty normal as well in the US.
since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!"
Culture?!? You're not making sense.
Yeah, you can disassemble what was said, but you're just un-contexting it. Yes culture, in other countries the law enforcement may/may not believe the public is the enemy, the US law has for quite a while, with exceptions. If you'd like a definition of culture google may be able to help you, but looking at people who break the law as subhuman is pretty normal as well in the US.
Well... imo, some people who break the law are subhuman. Ie, rapist, murder, ect...
Reports that Ofc Darren Wilson had a bruised or fractured eye socket are false. #ferguson A source close to the investigation tells CNN
— Julian Cummings CNN (@JulianCummings) August 21, 2014
Wilson was taken to the hospital after the shooting. He had xrays which came back negative. He was treated for a swollen face. #ferguson
— Julian Cummings CNN (@JulianCummings) August 21, 2014
The extent of the injury on his face matters because it provides a stronger defense that he reasonably feared serious injury from Brown when he allegedly charged at him.
But, then again... who the feth knows at this point. Hopefully we'll hear the facts after the Grand Jury wraps up.
stanman wrote: Being shot isn't like the movies where a guy takes one bullet and goes flying 10ft from the impact. There are plenty of cases where people are shot and don't even realize it at the time. Often it takes being hit several times before the damage registers with the body. Add in the influence of drugs or adrenaline and people can often sustain a lot of injury and not feel a thing even if they are fatally wounded at the time.
During a fire fight one of my friends was shot a total of five times while serving in Iraq, not only did he survive but he managed to keep returning fire for a bit. (An AK-47 is significantly more damaging than a 9mm pistol btw) That obviously doesn't happen in every case, but people have been known to survive being repeatedly shot and just one round doesn't always immobilize the target, particularly when it's coming from a pistol.
not to detract from the fact that your friend was shot but aren't police ammo usually hollow points? from what i understand those are designed to just do massive amount of damage to soft targets vs Aks which i dont even know if they come in hollow points (goes straight through rather than explode within the target. (honest question)
Hollow points are a pretty common ammo type now days (for both pistols and rifles). A rifle bullet is far worse then a pistol (even firing a hollow point) because it has a much greater velocity. Due to physics the damage that a bullet inflicts depends on the amount of energy it transfers, the more energy the more damage. The ways that you generate that energy is the mass of the bullet (size) and the speed at which it's traveling. Rifle bullets not only tend to be larger and heavier but also travel much faster, thats why depending on the caliber they will penetrate body armor where most pistols will be stopped even at point blank range. A 9mm bullet will be stopped by most body armor, while a bullet from an AK can often penetrate through both the front and back of that armor. (as well as the person in between that armor)
The type of wounds that are inflicted will also vary a lot, both with the type of ammo being used but also dependent on if it hits flesh or it impacts bone. Smaller and lighter rounds striking a bone are often stopped or ricochet, a heavier faster round will completely shatter the bone which leads to massive internal injuries that are much more difficult to treat then a standard bullet wound (hitting flesh).
Because of the way rifle bullets are shaped and their heavier mass they have a natural deformation when striking a target that causes them to mushroom, pistol bullets are lighter and on a standard round don't deform in the same way; so hollow points are used to help replicate a similar mushroom effect like what happens on rifle ammo. Rifle rounds are typically much more damaging as they have a built in mushroom effect along with the extra mass and velocity.
right, im sure the first thing that is supposed to be going through the cops head is "I wonder how valuable this person, who just broke my face, life is. 4 bullets? ten? six? yeah, six sounds good, I think on the manual black guys get six bullets"
So let me understand, either
A: The diet of McDonalds and American reality TV has bred a form of SUPER CRIMINAL, faster, stronger, feeling less pain than anywhere else in the world, america is under siege these monsters that absolutely will never stop until they are dead, however once(if) they leave the country they have been removed from the source of their power and become normal again, so they exist nowhere else and these actions are completely justified.
or
B: The rest of the civilized world have found a way of dealing with their criminals that does not involve gunning them down in the street regularly
I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
right, im sure the first thing that is supposed to be going through the cops head is "I wonder how valuable this person, who just broke my face, life is. 4 bullets? ten? six? yeah, six sounds good, I think on the manual black guys get six bullets"
So let me understand, either
A: The diet of McDonalds and American reality TV has bred a form of SUPER CRIMINAL, faster, stronger, feeling less pain * than anywhere else in the world
*I do believe you left out "and blacker" in your list of qualifications.
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
No. The fact is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about and are tired of being wrong. Don't blame some mythical "gun brigade" on the fact that you've been spouting nonsense.
If your right orbital has been shattered and your right eye looking in another direction, dealing with sudden TBI that just occured. Brown touching the Wilson weapon. A discharge occuring in the car. Exiting the vehicle. Assaliant advancing towards me (or appear to be), weapon fire.....I miss a calm rational thought that Wilson would have had somewhere in this process?
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
No. The fact is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about and are tired of being wrong. Don't blame some mythical "gun brigade" on the fact that you've been spouting nonsense.
Edit
Took me awhile to remember who Crimson was. I agree with you Cincy
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
No. The fact is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about and are tired of being wrong. Don't blame some mythical "gun brigade" on the fact that you've been spouting nonsense.
right, im sure the first thing that is supposed to be going through the cops head is "I wonder how valuable this person, who just broke my face, life is. 4 bullets? ten? six? yeah, six sounds good, I think on the manual black guys get six bullets"
So let me understand, either
A: The diet of McDonalds and American reality TV has bred a form of SUPER CRIMINAL, faster, stronger, feeling less pain than anywhere else in the world, america is under siege these monsters that absolutely will never stop until they are dead, however once(if) they leave the country they have been removed from the source of their power and become normal again, so they exist nowhere else and these actions are completely justified.
or
B: The rest of the civilized world have found a way of dealing with their criminals that does not involve gunning them down in the street regularly
Which is it?
Can't answer this unless one has experience in a shooting situation.
It may shock the rest of the world but despite being blood thirsty 'Muricans we do manage to arrest the vast majority of people without them being shot.
We even have lots of police shootings with survivors, not every incident results in a fatality. But feel free to rag on about how much our cops are nothing but racist, gun loving, violent animals.
It's not the wild west anymore, the situation like Ferguson isn't an everyday occurrence which is why it's such a sensational case. If things were like this all the time it wouldn't be a blip in the news much less an international news story that's running font and center for weeks. People want to demonize this event to fit their narrow view of cops, or Americans, or simply to sell a story but this is certainly not typical daily event in the US.
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
No. The fact is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about and are tired of being wrong. Don't blame some mythical "gun brigade" on the fact that you've been spouting nonsense.
really? so which is it? A or B?
well,
when you give me two, ridiculous, made up choices, which are both examples of strawmanning what has actually been said,
then my answer is neither, because neither of them are pertinent to the actual specific situation we are talking about, both of which drip with sarcasm and bias as either answer is just silly.
I came from a reasonable point that cops shoot people who threaten their lives, and when in a situation where they are hurt and fearful, shooting 6 times isnt even close to unreasonable,
and you just come from left feild like is an either or choice between a land of bubble gumdrop fairies where no one gets shot by the cops
and where cops just shoot every black person on sight like they are a zombie.
we are much closer to the former extreme then the latter too.
It's not the wild west, the situation like Ferguson isn't an everyday occurrence which is why it's such a sensational case. If things were like this all the time it wouldn't be a blip in the news much less an international news story that's running font and center for weeks. People want to demonize this behavior to fit their narrow view of cops or Americans or simply to sell a story but this is certainly not typical daily event in the US.
Actually, what's sad in many ways is that certain people were actually a LOT safer in the "Wild West" than they are now.
Crimson wrote: Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is completely wrong.
It is entirely a question of how valuable the shootee's life is in comparison to how much danger the shooter is in. since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!" the person getting shots life is basically worthless, as shown by handcuffing him (assuming he isn't dead in which case it seems stupid) and then not rendering aid as he dies (hopeless or not). I'm guessing you don't care a whole lot about these people.
Since arrest rates of minorities is much, much higher (for reasons and things), and you dont care/encourage excessive force against them, can you not see why they think this is a race issue?
I think you're reading way too much into one sentence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
No. The fact is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about and are tired of being wrong. Don't blame some mythical "gun brigade" on the fact that you've been spouting nonsense.
really? so which is it? A or B?
well,
when you give me two, ridiculous, made up choices, which are both examples of strawmanning what has actually been said,
I did? how about a one sentence one?
Are american criminals more dangerous than criminals in other civilized countries who aren't gunned down at anywhere near the same rate or is your entire argument a farce?
Maybe they are. We have decided as a society that we have a constitutional right to bear arms that most other western nations don't have, with all the good and bad that it comes with.
One of the bad things is that it makes law enforcement a much more dangerous occupation.
Are american criminals more dangerous than criminals in other civilized countries who aren't gunned down at anywhere near the same rate or is your entire argument a farce?
Yes, and no, all at the same time... They are because they might be in possession of a gun. Or, better put, the odds of them having a gun in America, vs. say, Australia, or France is much higher. This places a greater degree of danger on almost any situation, until such a time as it is completely known whether or not a criminal/perp/suspect is in possession of a weapon.
Are american criminals more dangerous than criminals in other civilized countries who aren't gunned down at anywhere near the same rate or is your entire argument a farce?
Yes, and no, all at the same time... They are because they might be in possession of a gun. Or, better put, the odds of them having a gun in America, vs. say, Australia, or France is much higher. This places a greater degree of danger on almost any situation, until such a time as it is completely known whether or not a criminal/perp/suspect is in possession of a weapon.
I joined the police force because the captain knew my father and told me it was either that or go to jail. I got lucky that they just relaxed the standards because of manpower shortages.
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
Good. Little teenager, never having lived life yet. Please act superior to others. Just like all other teenagers.
Watch for the RUssians on the horizon. They are coming .
Crimson wrote: I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.
No. The fact is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about and are tired of being wrong. Don't blame some mythical "gun brigade" on the fact that you've been spouting nonsense.
really? so which is it? A or B?
well,
when you give me two, ridiculous, made up choices, which are both examples of strawmanning what has actually been said,
I did? how about a one sentence one?
Are american criminals more dangerous than criminals in other civilized countries who aren't gunned down at anywhere near the same rate or is your entire argument a farce?
MS 13 says yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I joined the police force because the captain knew my father and told me it was either that or go to jail. I got lucky that they just relaxed the standards because of manpower shortages.
Hey thats how my dad joined the Corps! The judge said do 20 or join the Corps. Aint life great?
Never stood before the Judge and received those options
After highschool I went and joined the circus and after awhile when I became aware they were not going to give me a Dental Plan I left and joined the Army
Frazzled is drunk and has as 8.oo PM call toSingapore pray Frazzled doesn't say something stupidn and loses his job...
OK so kets cut the crap. Can we all say
1. Race relations need to get better. My children need to live in a better world than me.
2. Can't we all just fething get alongn for once and let everyone just live their lives.
Oh and as anAggie Dad I finally saw aggieville. Damn thats a big schoool. Is it wrong to be jealous of your own boy for the opportunities he has. I am so happy. he is so much smarter than me. Can we not have the world just fething get a little better for Him, for all the children? Seriously, people just want to llive and be happy. Enough with the death already. Jesus is crying a whats become of his family. We're all savages time tongod damn grow up and love one another.
Frazzled wrote: Frazzled is drunk and has as 8.oo PM call toSingapore pray Frazzled doesn't say something stupidn and loses his job...
OK so kets cut the crap. Can we all say
1. Race relations need to get better. My children need to live in a better world than me.
2. Can't we all just fething get alongn for once and let everyone just live their lives.
Oh and as anAggie Dad I finally saw aggieville. Damn thats a big schoool. Is it wrong to be jealous of your own boy for the opportunities he has. I am so happy. he is so much smarter than me. Can we not have the world just fething get a little better for Him, for all the children? Seriously, people just want to llive and be happy. Enough with the death already. Jesus is crying a whats become of his family. We're all savages time tongod damn grow up and love one another.
Disband all LEO agencies
Let the people police up after themselves since we're all mature and educated grown adults
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned about cops using hollow point bullets.
They don't all use hollow point bullets.
It depends on the department and what they feel is best.
Some depts are equipped with 9mm and use Glazers, others use Hydro-shoks.
Other depts use .40 or even .45 and use a full metal jacketed slug.
Many consciencious gun owners when equpping a pistol for home defense will match what law enforcement uses in that area (not the weapon per se, instead the ammunition). It has at times been an important detail in court proceedings after a civilian on civilian incident.
Hate to say it sorry the shooting was justified. With the recent medical releases of both the suspect and the officer it was proven he assaulted the cop. Guess what all you Gov. haters, the facts don't lie. Way to go to the cop for doing his job and defending himself, I would have done the same if I was attacked.
I guess we'll find out.
