Two police officers have been shot in Ferguson, a Missouri town hit by riots over the killing of an unarmed black teenager last year.
One officer was shot in the face and one in the shoulder, St Louis County police chief Jon Belmar said.
Both suffered "very serious gunshot injuries" but were conscious, he said.
They were shot during a demonstration after the resignation of Ferguson's police chief, which followed a report alleging racial bias in his department.
Protesters had gathered outside Ferguson police headquarters late on Wednesday, in what was initially a relatively low-key demonstration.
But shortly after midnight at least three shots were fired as the crowd of protesters was starting to break up, Mr Belmar said.
He said he was assuming that "these shots were directed exactly at my police officers", rather than the officers being hit by stray bullets
One protester, Keith Rose, said he saw an officer "covered in blood", and that other officers were carrying and dragging him, leaving a trail of blood on the ground.
Police were keeping protesters in the area in order to take witness statements, he said.
Demonstrators were calling for further action to be taken over the federal report, and for more resignations in the police department, Mr Rose said.
Police chief Thomas Jackson was the sixth Ferguson official to be fired or step down. He had initially resisted calls from protesters and some state leaders to resign.
Mr Jackson was widely criticised after the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in August and the weeks of demonstrations that followed.
Police in riot gear respond to demonstrators outside the Ferguson Police Department on 11 March The shooting occurred outside Ferguson police headquarters
In November, a St Louis County grand jury and the US Justice Department found that white police officer Darren Wilson did not break any laws when he shot Brown.
However, Brown's shooting and the riots that followed spurred a federal investigation. It found overwhelming racial bias in the town's policing practices, though Darren Wilson was cleared of civil rights violations.
The report noted public officials regularly made tickets and other minor violations "go away" for white friends, while some black residents spent nights in jail for non-payment of fines.
It also found that black residents were disproportionately subjected to baseless traffic stops and citations for minor infractions such as walking down the middle of the street.
Ferguson's police force had three black officers, despite the fact that the town of 21,000 people was predominately black.
US Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government will "use all power that we have to change the situation".
That could include dissolving the police force and turning over law enforcement responsibilities to neighbouring agencies.
A local Democratic party leader, Patricia Bynes, said "a lot of anger" had built up in Ferguson because more action had not been taken sooner.
"The longer they continue to draw things out, the angrier people get," she said. "And when they finally start doing the right thing, it just is not enough."
The names of the two officers wounded on Thursday were not given, but Mr Belmar said one was a 32-year-old from another St Louis suburb, Webster Groves, and the other a 41-year-old from St Louis County.
My thoughts and prayers are with the officers families. Sadly given some of the rhetoric directed at the police in Ferguson this seems almost inevitable.
Frazzled wrote: How many Ferguson cops are left? Chief and the one guy resigned, two are shot.
Aren't there only 10,000 people in Ferguson?
There's about 21,000 people in Ferguson.
Reuters has reported that the two cops that were shot were not part of Ferguson PD but were officers from other departments that had been sent to augment the police presence in Ferguson because of the large protest that was occurring there.
A lot of the reporting is very poorly written with obvious bias and a lack of context.
The fact that the Ferguson PD is mostly white while the population of Ferguson is mostly black are two unrelated facts. The pool of applicants for jobs with Ferguson PD is not limited to the residents of the municipality. Why not include important contextual information? How many police academy graduates are black? How many officers are employed by Ferguson and what is the turnover ratio? How many applicants for available spots in Ferguson PD are black? How many black Ferguson residents are qualified to be police officers?
Likewise, if the article wants to castigate Ferguson PD for mostly white when the municipality is mostly black it's not ratoinal to then imply racism as the reason behind the majority of people given traffic citations by Ferguson PD are black. If most of the populace is black it is perfectly reasonable to expect that a majority of the traffic citations written in that municipality are given to blacks.
Not excluding anyone, you wall in the police and all the other city services right along with the rest of Ferguson. Let the city tear itself apart and only open up the gates once the smoke clears and all the animals have killed each other. (both citizens and local government)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
whembly wrote: race hustlers ginning up faux racism charges.
Those emails didn't really seem too "faux" to me. I mean, when you (to pick a single example) have a police supervisor sending racist jokes around the department, it's not exactly a far reach to think he might also police unprofessionally along those lines, and willing to overlook similar behavior in his subordinates.
Some numbers from that report:
From 2012 to 2014, 85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American, 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
In 88% of the cases in which Ferguson police officers reported using force, it was against African-Americans. From 2012-2014 black drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during traffic stops, but 26% less likely to be found in possession of contraband.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
Best to just ignore things like that and label all the cops as racists.
Reuters has reported that the two cops that were shot were not part of Ferguson PD but were officers from other departments that had been sent to augment the police presence in Ferguson because of the large protest that was occurring there.
If true that sucks. Go in to help clean up the mess, end up a victim of it.
stanman wrote: Not excluding anyone, you wall in the police and all the other city services right along with the rest of Ferguson. Let the city tear itself apart and only open up the gates once the smoke clears and all the animals have killed each other. (both citizens and local government)
At what point do we send in Batman to save the day?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
Best to just ignore things like that and label all the cops as racists.
Our you could look at the facts... That are very easy to find.
From 2012 to 2014, 85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American, 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
67% of the city's 21,000 residents are black, and 29% are white.
85% of people subject to vehicle stops are black. 12.7% are white.
The figures clearly show that this is not simply a matter of being a majority.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
Best to just ignore things like that and label all the cops as racists.
Our you could look at the facts... That are very easy to find.
From 2012 to 2014, 85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American, 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
67% of the city's 21,000 residents are black, and 29% are white.
85% of people subject to vehicle stops are black. 12.7% are white.
The figures clearly show that this is not simply a matter of being a majority.
Yes, they show that black people if Ferguson apparently commit more infractions than people from other races.
From 2012 to 2014, 85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American, 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
67% of the city's 21,000 residents are black, and 29% are white.
85% of people subject to vehicle stops are black. 12.7% are white.
The figures clearly show that this is not simply a matter of being a majority.
Yes, they show that black people if Ferguson apparently commit more infractions than people from other races.
No, it shows that 67% of the city is black, and 85% of the people being stopped are black.
Yes, they show that black people if Ferguson apparently commit more infractions than people from other races.
No it doesn't. Just because someone is stopped by the police does not mean they have done something wrong. In fact the evidence shows that the police are disproportionately targeting black drivers. If you read back you will see they are also twice as likely to be searched but 26% less likely to be found in possession of anything illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
Best to just ignore things like that and label all the cops as racists.
Our you could look at the facts... That are very easy to find.
From 2012 to 2014, 85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American, 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
67% of the city's 21,000 residents are black, and 29% are white.
85% of people subject to vehicle stops are black. 12.7% are white.
The figures clearly show that this is not simply a matter of being a majority.
If you were looking further you'd have to pull out stops for expired registrations and vehicle damage (aka taillight out), and see what the stats are. Less wealthy classes routinely have higher pullover rates for those because-well frankly they don't have the money to waste.
Then you'd have to research local populations by economic status to see if there was a better correlation.
An interesting fly is that apparently Ferguson is on the mainline between the St. Louis airport and St. Louis. if true this mucks up a good analysis.
From 2012 to 2014, 85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American, 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
67% of the city's 21,000 residents are black, and 29% are white.
85% of people subject to vehicle stops are black. 12.7% are white.
The figures clearly show that this is not simply a matter of being a majority.
Yes, they show that black people if Ferguson apparently commit more infractions than people from other races.
No, it shows that 67% of the city is black, and 85% of the people being stopped are black.
And that fact alone does not necessarily indicate racism.
I'm not sure how mixed race neighborhoods are/are not within the Ferguson PD jurisdiction, nor do I know what the crime rates in the various neighborhoods are. I could see one possible explanation is that LE resources are allocated to higher crime areas (and times) to weight the effort to where they believe it is most needed. It would then make sense that there would be more stops of all types in those areas with the most police. If those higher crime areas have a majority of the folks belonging to one race or another, I would then expect the folks of that race to be the subject of the majority of stops in those areas.
I have a relative who is a LEO in a pretty big city, and the neighborhood he is assigned to patrol has folks made up primarily of one race. It is no surprise that the majority of folks he stops in that area are members of that race.
Honest question, does anyone know how mixed the neighborhoods are in Ferguson? Or the crime rates in the neighborhoods?
Yes, they show that black people if Ferguson apparently commit more infractions than people from other races.
No it doesn't. Just because someone is stopped by the police does not mean they have done something wrong. In fact the evidence shows that the police are disproportionately targeting black drivers. If you read back you will see they are also twice as likely to be searched but 26% less likely to be found in possession of anything illegal.
They also say that 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
If a cop sees a guy committing an infraction they should stop him, not just let him keep going because they've already filled up their monthly 65% quota for traffic stops for black drivers.
From 2012 to 2014, 85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American, 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
67% of the city's 21,000 residents are black, and 29% are white.
85% of people subject to vehicle stops are black. 12.7% are white.
The figures clearly show that this is not simply a matter of being a majority.
Yes, they show that black people if Ferguson apparently commit more infractions than people from other races.
No, it shows that 67% of the city is black, and 85% of the people being stopped are black.
And that fact alone does not necessarily indicate racism.
Very true.
In isolation is just shows that 67% of the city is black, and 85% of the people being stopped are black, and that 90something% of the people being arrested are black.
In isolation is doesn't show WHY the rates of stops and arrests are higher for the black population than the white population. That number doesn't show that the blacks in the city are more likely to be criminals than their white counterparts. That number doesn't show that whites commit less crimes. That number doesn't show that cops are a bunch of racists looking to stick it to the black community.
And the report didn't look at those numbers in isolation. It looked at procedures. It looked at departmental culture. It looked at many different variables, with the discrepancy of "% of blacks in city vs % of blacks stopped vs % of blacks arrested" being just one of those things.
When I read the report, I see exactly what I saw in person at my old fire department and I see the exact reason why I am no longer with that department.
The law enforcement in that area needs to clean up their act and the police need to police themselves better to get some healing.
The agitators in the community need to feth off and the community needs to police themselves better to get some healing.
The shooters need to be found, and I strongly hope that members of the community who know anything about this will step forward even at the risk of being branded Uncle Toms or something similar.
There is a ton of hurt, pain, and racial problems in that community (and that community is just one small place in our nation where problems like that still exist *looks down at those idiots in Norman, Oklahoma*). A ton of healing has to happen on both sides. We took steps backwards when cops during the initial protests pointed their guns at protesters and told them that they will kill them. We took a step forward with the release of the report that found that the feelings of the community were justified (not about the shooting, but the conditions that lead to the initial protests). Now we took a big step back with those idiots that shot the cops last night.
whembly wrote: race hustlers ginning up faux racism charges.
Those emails didn't really seem too "faux" to me. I mean, when you (to pick a single example) have a police supervisor sending racist jokes around the department, it's not exactly a far reach to think he might also police unprofessionally along those lines, and willing to overlook similar behavior in his subordinates.
I'm not defending that... but, to paint the whole PD? That's a wide brush.
Some numbers from that report:
From 2012 to 2014, 85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American, 90% of those who received citations were black, and 93% of people arrested were black.
In 88% of the cases in which Ferguson police officers reported using force, it was against African-Americans. From 2012-2014 black drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during traffic stops, but 26% less likely to be found in possession of contraband.
I don't think there's any polishing that turd.
It is a pile of turd. But, not in the way this report is advocating.
The steaming pile of poo is the fact that there's actually policy to issue fines/infraction/asset seizure to maintain certain level of revenue.
Not because they're "picking on black people" or there's systemic racism.
Don't you have that one town where everyone knows you don't speed?
We'll... locally, we have about 10 towns that are like that... and most of them happens to be pre-dominantly black towns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
Its also reasonable when the black population accounts for a disproportionate amount of crime.
Really, the problem isn't cops disproportionately arresting people of a certain race, its the factors which have led to that race being responsible for more of the crime.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
Its also reasonable when the black population accounts for a disproportionate amount of crime.
Really, the problem isn't cops disproportionately arresting people of a certain race, its the factors which have led to that race being responsible for more of the crime.
Except in this case they are specifically targeting people of a certain race in the effort to raise revenue for the city.
Let's remember these police also arrested someone for having the same name of someone wanted for a crime, but his SSN didn't match up, nor did his DL #. That didn't stop them from arresting this innocent man, locking him up for the night, then beating him til he had to be taken to the hospital because he asked for a cot to sleep on. They then create a charge and charge him with destruction of government property, because they got his blood on their uniforms while they were beating him.
You can pretend they're not racists if you'd like, but the DOJ says otherwise. And have enough evidence to fill a 102 page report on just how racist these guys are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: You read a 102 pd report from the DOJ? I'm so sorry for you.
the minecraft server is down and I'm a fast reader
One thing to keep in mind that in the year 2015, racism isn't just the obvious "wear a white rope, fly the confederate flag, keep the blacks out of my neighborhood because n*****s are all criminals and we don't need their kind here" racism. And I think that the reason so many people get defensive about any accusation about racism is that they may also feel that this is the kind of behavior that they feel they are being accused of.
But racism isn't always obvious, and at times racism doesn't even have to be intentional. It can be a bias here, an off-handed remark there, a policy that affects one group more than the other, that when they are all combined can create a system and an environment that ends up targeting one group more than the other. You can declare that there are serious racial problems at the department, you could even say that it was a racist department, but that doesn't mean that every member of the department is racist.
It does however point to a leadership that at best was too weak to control the department and at worst was the source of these tendencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
Its also reasonable when the black population accounts for a disproportionate amount of crime.
Really, the problem isn't cops disproportionately arresting people of a certain race, its the factors which have led to that race being responsible for more of the crime.
Except in this case they are specifically targeting people of a certain race in the effort to raise revenue for the city.
Let's remember these police also arrested someone for having the same name of someone wanted for a crime, but his SSN didn't match up, nor did his DL #. That didn't stop them from arresting this innocent man, locking him up for the night, then beating him til he had to be taken to the hospital because he asked for a cot to sleep on. They then create a charge and charge him with destruction of government property, because they got his blood on their uniforms while they were beating him.
You can pretend they're not racists if you'd like, but the DOJ says otherwise. And have enough evidence to fill a 102 page report on just how racist these guys are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: You read a 102 pd report from the DOJ? I'm so sorry for you.
the minecraft server is down and I'm a fast reader
I believe necessity is the ruling factor in most peoples lives. Most people, cops included, need their jobs to provide for themselves. To jeopardize their jobs for some "racist feelings" they have just doesn't make sense with that. There is literally no benefit to targeting blacks, in fact, if you want to make money for your police department you should target white people - they are more likely to pay and they are less likely to resist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't want to go to far here but...isn't it reasonable to believe that a predominately black community is going to have more black traffic stops compared to white considering it is the predominant race?
Its also reasonable when the black population accounts for a disproportionate amount of crime.
Really, the problem isn't cops disproportionately arresting people of a certain race, its the factors which have led to that race being responsible for more of the crime.
Except in this case they are specifically targeting people of a certain race in the effort to raise revenue for the city.
Let's remember these police also arrested someone for having the same name of someone wanted for a crime, but his SSN didn't match up, nor did his DL #. That didn't stop them from arresting this innocent man, locking him up for the night, then beating him til he had to be taken to the hospital because he asked for a cot to sleep on. They then create a charge and charge him with destruction of government property, because they got his blood on their uniforms while they were beating him.
You can pretend they're not racists if you'd like, but the DOJ says otherwise. And have enough evidence to fill a 102 page report on just how racist these guys are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: You read a 102 pd report from the DOJ? I'm so sorry for you.
the minecraft server is down and I'm a fast reader
I believe necessity is the ruling factor in most peoples lives. Most people, cops included, need their jobs to provide for themselves. To jeopardize their jobs for some "racist feelings" they have just doesn't make sense with that. There is literally no benefit to targeting blacks, in fact, if you want to make money for your police department you should target white people - they are more likely to pay and they are less likely to resist.
their jobs are not in jeopardy though, if they follow the recommendations from the DOJ, they will receive training and keep their jobs. If some cops continue to show "racist feelings" after that, then it will be up to the new chief to fix them. I'm not even sure if a police chief can fire officers, anyone know? So far other than the chief, they fired a clerk. The problem isn't just the police though, it's also in the courts as well.
White people are also more likely to lawyer up and not just pay the fines. Then the city loses money after a court case which based on the report would be tossed out for any number of unconstitutional practices. so the city pays legal fees & no revenue from fines.
I see the term "African American" thrown around a lot, is there something about first generation African immigrants I don't know about?
On the other hand, this is inexcusable. The race baiters like Eric Holder and Al Sharpton should be brought up on charges for incurring this whole mess to begn with.
They keep saying pistol but Jebus from the distance they're saying its sounds like a rifle. Even the live "video" they showed and from the sharp crack of the weapon discharging it sounds like a rifle
The shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri, was a "heinous assault" that could undermine police reforms, said the US attorney general.
Two officers were seriously injured early during protests following the resignation of the police chief after a damning report about racial bias.
Such violence was "repugnant", Attorney General Eric Holder said.
. . .
Describing the assault, Mr Holder said: "Such senseless acts of violence threaten the very reforms that non-violent protesters in Ferguson and around the country have been working towards for the past several months."
He later added that the shooting "turned his stomach" with disgust.
President Barack Obama tweeted "violence against police is unacceptable" adding "Path to justice is one all of us must travel together".
whembly wrote: Did he really just say "non-violent protesters in Ferguson and around the country have been working towards for the past several months"???
Did you really just imply that there were no non-violent protesters
Jihadin wrote: They keep saying pistol but Jebus from the distance they're saying its sounds like a rifle. Even the live "video" they showed and from the sharp crack of the weapon discharging it sounds like a rifle
Edit
One M4 did get looted in that area
The shots were from 120 yards away, so the police are saying. If that was a pistol, then I'm Barbara Streisand.
whembly wrote: Did he really just say "non-violent protesters in Ferguson and around the country have been working towards for the past several months"???
Did you really just imply that there were no non-violent protesters
He did exactly nothing for the truly peaceful protesters.
Yes, they did exist, and there were numerous peaceful protesters (and even helped in the post-riots cleanup efforts). But, they were largely ignored.
Both Holder and Sharpton share the burden of inflaming the tension.
d-usa wrote: So there is nothing to facepalm over and the statement that actions like this threaten what peaceful protestors are fighting for is correct?
So you're going to ignore this Administration, and its media allies... choosing for political reasons to push the false “hands up don’t shoot” narrative?
I actually blame Brown friend that swore that Brown had his hands up and trying to surrender. Holder and Obama were "influence" by that idiot statement.
Jihadin wrote: I actually blame Brown friend that swore that Brown had his hands up and trying to surrender. Holder and Obama were "influence" by that idiot statement.
No, they were influenced by their own prejudices. What they should have done was waited for the evidence to be gathered and presented, before stoking any flames.
Don't act like they didn't. Same thing happened with Martin. Piss poor attempts were made to stay "neutral" when they should have just kept their mouths shut in the first place.
Don't act like they didn't. Same thing happened with Martin. Piss poor attempts were made to stay "neutral" when they should have just kept their mouths shut in the first place.
And their findings that the PD excessively write tickets for revenue purposes would carry more weight. (which is a legt problem... ie, like Bel-Nor by UMSL)
Jihadin wrote: They keep saying pistol but Jebus from the distance they're saying its sounds like a rifle. Even the live "video" they showed and from the sharp crack of the weapon discharging it sounds like a rifle
Edit
One M4 did get looted in that area
The shots were from 120 yards away, so the police are saying. If that was a pistol, then I'm Barbara Streisand.
Jihadin wrote: They keep saying pistol but Jebus from the distance they're saying its sounds like a rifle. Even the live "video" they showed and from the sharp crack of the weapon discharging it sounds like a rifle
Edit
One M4 did get looted in that area
The shots were from 120 yards away, so the police are saying. If that was a pistol, then I'm Barbara Streisand.
Jihadin wrote: They keep saying pistol but Jebus from the distance they're saying its sounds like a rifle. Even the live "video" they showed and from the sharp crack of the weapon discharging it sounds like a rifle
Edit
One M4 did get looted in that area
The shots were from 120 yards away, so the police are saying. If that was a pistol, then I'm Barbara Streisand.
Jihadin wrote: They keep saying pistol but Jebus from the distance they're saying its sounds like a rifle. Even the live "video" they showed and from the sharp crack of the weapon discharging it sounds like a rifle
Edit
One M4 did get looted in that area
The shots were from 120 yards away, so the police are saying. If that was a pistol, then I'm Barbara Streisand.
Any chance you can sing, "evergreen" for me.
Not until you buy me dinner.
Spoilsport.
I just don't want to get a reputation that I'm that type of person, you know?
Stripped to its bare bones, the incident had the ingredients of another racial firestorm: A white cop with a prior shooting on his record repeatedly fires at and kills a young black male, a former college football player, in full view of a crowd dispersing from a wedding at an African-American church on the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. In one newspaper’s terse assessment: “kindling in need only of a match.” Yet when these unfortunate circumstances recently befell Muskogee, OK, there were no protests by angry marchers, no demands for criminal prosecution of the police, no looting or burning, no related arrests . . .
Instead, thanks to a police department’s skillful performance in getting its “narrative” of the facts across to the public and maintaining calm in the critical days after the shooting, the fatal encounter and its aftermath became what one publication calls “an example for the entire country of how a police department should conduct itself.”
Some of what went on behind the scenes to produce a peaceful outcome, including the important role of Force Science training, is detailed here for the first time–and includes navigation strategies that other agencies may find useful when fate deals them a potential crisis. But Muskogee Police Chief Rex Eskridge cautions: “You can’t start working on all this the day something happens. This was a collaborative effort, involving relationships with the media and the black community that had been cultivated over a long period of time, a city government that fully supported us, a command staff that was attuned to important sensibilities. And it started with patrol officers who were out there doing the job as it should be done.”
SHOTS FIRED. About 3:50 on a Saturday afternoon last January, two urgent calls in quick succession rang into Muskogee’s 911 center from the pastor of a black Baptist church on the northwest edge of the city. A distraught young woman, part of a crowd leaving a wedding he’d just conducted, had come to him for help, claiming an ex-boyfriend had threatened to kill her. He was in the parking lot now with a gun and “a bullet with her name on it.”
“I need a police officer!” the pastor blurted. “I got a whole bunch of people out here. I don’t want nobody hurt.”
The first responder, Ofcr. Chansey McMillin, readily confronted a subject the pastor described–black male, early 20s, white jacket, short dreadlocks–mingling with 50 or 60 wedding guests who had exited the church. When McMillin started to handcuff him for a patdown, the suspect tried to strike him with an elbow and the back of his hand, then bolted into a nearby road. During a brief foot pursuit, he dropped a “silver object” that McMillin later told a supervisor he recognized as a gun. He crouched to pick it up and pointed it in the officer’s direction.
McMillin fired five .40-cal. rounds from his Glock 22. The suspect collapsed into a watery roadside ditch, fatally wounded.
A backup officer located a “junker” .22-cal. pistol, hammer cocked and a round chambered, under the suspect’s body. The dead man’s left hand gripped a cell phone.
From the time McMillin stepped from his patrol car until he fired his first round, less than a minute elapsed.
BREAKING NEWS. Called to the scene from home on his day off, the PD’s public information officer, Sgt. Michael Mahan, had made himself a student of how the controversial shooting in Ferguson, MO, five months earlier had been handled publicly, and he vowed not to repeat what he considered a critical failing there: Ferguson authorities had not adequately explained and defended the involved officer’s legitimate actions from the get-go.
“You can’t have a bunker mentality these days,” Mahan told Force Science News. “Trying to duck reporters with ‘No comment’ or stalling until a full investigation is complete only deepens distrust. You’ve got to put things in a context so the public can understand matters that may seem obvious to law enforcement.”
At the church, Mahan quickly gathered the salient facts, particularly from the pastor and from the supervisor who’d taken McMillin’s public safety statement before the officer was removed from the scene. Then he offered himself for a series of reports for four TV crews.
“I always prefer to go live if possible on breaking news,” Mahan says. “I want to get exactly what we’re saying out there from the top, not somebody else’s paraphrasing or editing of our position. And I want to immediately get people focusing on the facts.”
He made certain to direct the crews to “a witness who saw everything,” the pastor. The minister had told Mahan that he felt McMillin “did everything right” in the fatal confrontation, and the PIO wanted that statement, coming from a credible source, repeated on camera, along with the pastor’s description of the suspect’s initial threat to kill the wedding guest.
A reporter, noting that McMillin was white, asked if race was a factor in the shooting. “Race had nothing to do with it,” Mahan answered. “It had to do strictly with actions and the response to actions”–a theme he would underscore more than once across the coming days.
Yet even as he spoke, someone in the parking lot crowd was claiming that the suspect had only a cell phone in his hand when he was shot. And someone else was alleging that he was shot multiple times in the back but had never made a threatening move against the officer.
TRANSPARENCY PLEDGES. Within 15 minutes of the shooting, the police department contacted the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) to take over the official probe of what happened to assure the public of an independent inquiry.
With OSBI approval, the PD would be free to analyze the video recording from the TASER Axon body camera that had been affixed to McMillin’s collar and, so long as the investigation was not compromised, to comment publicly on what the footage revealed. Mahan assured the media they could expect “full transparency” from Muskogee PD, regardless of what the video showed.
As more was learned about the dead man (a 21-year-old who’d been a scholarship linebacker for a local college the year before), a deputy chief from MPD talked by phone with the suspect’s mother in Texas. He promised he’d keep her abreast of developments daily and gave her his number to call any time she had questions.
Several black clergymen, one of whom is also a city councilman, had showed up at the scene as word of the shooting spread, and a core component of a response plan that involved them quickly took shape. In light of the active personal and professional relationship he’d developed with the city’s African-American ministers, Chief Eskridge believed they could be valuable conduits through which the PD could reach out to reassure Muskogee’s black community.
A meeting was set for the next day at a community center with members of the black ministerial alliance, city council members, the mayor and city manager, community leaders, and representatives of the police department. The religious leaders and politicians were asked to urge to their constituencies not to rush to conclusions about the shooting until an analysis of Ofcr. McMillin’s body cam video could be completed and a “more informed judgment” could be made.
In return, they too were promised full transparency “as information becomes available,” including the chance to see the entire footage and ask questions before it was made public.
Meanwhile, McMillin was concerned about public reaction in Muskogee, a town of 39,000 with something of a rough-and-tumble reputation. Nearly one in five of its residents is black, and the city has suffered racial tensions in the past.
A military Bronze Star recipient who’d seen heavy-combat service in Iraq and Afghanistan, 36-year-old McMillin had been involved in shooting another minority, a subject who had committed violent attacks with a knife, just six months earlier. That shooting was nonfatal and was determined to be justified.
“Still,” says his attorney Scott Wood, “given the national climate, he worried that he might become another Darren Wilson,” the beleaguered officer in Ferguson.
VIDEO ANALYSIS. McMillin asked Wood, himself a former officer and now a police attorney in nearby Tulsa, to represent him in the new investigation. Because Wood has counseled the city of Muskogee in various use-of-force cases across the last two decades, a deputy chief also asked him to review the body cam footage for possible legal issues.
Wood, a graduate of the Force Science Analysis course, recruited Sgt. Jim Clark of Tulsa PD, a nationally known use-of-force expert and former legal section chair for the National Tactical Officers Assn., to join him.
Beginning the evening of the shooting, Wood and Clark spent several sessions meticulously examining the video. “The shooting was one of the fastest evolving I’ve seen,” Wood says. “We watched it 15 or 20 times, and still some details didn’t become evident until we slowed down the action on a laptop so we could study it frame by frame.”
The most critical clarification concerned the object the fleeing suspect dropped and then recovered just before McMillin shot him. The officer had insisted it was a gun, but the distance between his collar camera and the suspect–Wood estimates it was 60 ft.–made the item difficult to distinguish on video when the recording was played at normal speed.
Frame-by-frame, however, the item became recognizable as a pistol, which for an instant was pointed threateningly at McMillin as the suspect picked it up from the pavement with his right hand. All McMillin’s rounds were then fired in less than 1.3 seconds.
Also, in the camera’s running footage as McMillin approached the downed offender, the gun could be seen revealed under the suspect’s body as the backup rolled him over–evidence that would refute any allegation that the weapon had been planted.
As for the rumor that it was his cell phone that the suspect dropped and pointed, the suspect could be seen early in the video transferring the phone from his right hand to his left when McMillin tried to pat him down. It was still in his left hand as he lay dead in the soggy ditch.
Wood called Chief Eskridge and assured him the shooting looked “perfectly justified.” Even so, based on the video, Wood predicted the autopsy would show “some shots to the suspect’s back,” a potential flashpoint for civilian minds.
3 HITS. Soon after the weekend, the medical examiner confirmed it. Three of McMillin’s five rounds had brought the suspect down. One struck his left side, another entered the left side of his back and penetrated his heart, and a third bored into the base of his skull and exited his left eye socket, Wood says.
“It was a classic example of what Force Science teaches about how shots often end up in the back,” he notes. “An officer decides to shoot when he is facing a deadly threat, as McMillin was. But by the time the bullets impact, the suspect has begun to turn in flight, and the rounds strike in the back. With action and reaction times, it’s unavoidable.”
Policy requiring that body cams be worn by Muskogee officers had been finalized only a few days before the shooting. Wood says, “If we had not had video showing the movement of the suspect and the speed he was moving, the location of the wounds by themselves could have implied that he was shot when there was no direct threat.”
Armed with Wood’s and Clark’s analysis, Eskridge decided it was time for full public disclosure.
THE REVEAL. The rollout of evidence was carefully designed and orchestrated.
The first audiences were assembled groups of black clergy, city council members, other civic leaders, and representatives of the US Attorney’s Office, with Wood and Clark on hand to answer questions. Overlapping those presentations were debriefings at the PD as officers arrived for shift changes, giving them facts and interpretations with which they could dispel rumors they might encounter on patrol.
At the urging of Wood and Clark, the presentations consisted of more than just a playing of the body cam video at full speed. Instead, the first component of the program was a 25-slide PowerPoint production, created by Wood, that combined colored still frames taken from the video with explanatory text.
With walk-through narration, the PowerPoint focused attention on highlights of the confrontation and established justification for the shooting from the officer’s perspective. Pivotal frames included the suspect spinning away when McMillin tried to pat him down…launching an elbow and then a backhand at the officer’s head…targeting McMillin after recovering the dropped gun…the officer firing in self-protection…McMillin cautioning, “He’s got a gun!” as backup approached….and the retrieval of the cocked, chambered weapon and the cell phone.
After that, the video was shown in slow motion (speed reduced by a factor of 10) a couple of times before finally being played at normal speed. Q and A followed and included explanation of the back wounds and answers to anticipated questions like why McMillin fired multiple rounds and “didn’t just shoot the man in the leg.”
“Out of about 25 civilians who sat through the presentation, only one verbalized that he still thought the shooting was unnecessary,” Wood says. “All the others said they understood and promised to make sure that the black community knew what they’d been told and seen, to counter any inflammatory rumors.”
VIRAL. At 8 o’clock the next morning, TV stations and other major media in the state were emailed a copy of the PowerPoint program, the various formats of the video, a transcript of radio logs, and other materials pertinent to the shooting via a Dropbox attachment. On the advice of a friendly crime reporter, the time was specifically selected to allow TV newsrooms to “thoroughly absorb” the contents before their first major newscast of the day.
Included was a 15-point list of “considerations” for reporters compiled by PIO Mahan that directed their attention to crucial elements of the video. This itemization explained step-by-step why McMillin had reacted to the suspect’s actions as he did and why the police department felt he was legally justified in doing so.
Care was taken to state why McMillin had not used a less-lethal weapon instead of his gun. “This had come up repeatedly,” Mahan says, “and we felt it important to explain why anything less than deadly force was not appropriate to deal with the threat he faced.”
This same material was shared with the suspect’s family before it was released to the media and with the state NAACP president and his staff. Also a public “listening session” was scheduled for the weekend at a local African-American church where “people could voice their concerns and ask questions.”
“The video quickly went viral,” Mahan says. Before long, he was receiving email from as far away as the Netherlands and the UK. The coverage he knows of, he says, proved to be “fair and accurate in its presentation of the facts,” with some stories noting specifically that the PD was “leaving no doubt” about its defense of McMillin’s actions.
Mahan’s tenure as PIO ended soon after this event, but he recalls that before he left the post he received letters from a variety of news agencies congratulating the PD on its handling of the incident. The online news journal The Daily Beast wrote that Muskogee set “an example for the entire country on how a police department should conduct itself, starting with equipping its officers with body cameras and following through with a promise to be as transparent as possible in the wake of a fatal cop involved shooting.”
OUTCOME. Six days after the shooting, McMillin gave his official statement to the OSBI. Late last month, District Atty. Orvil Loge, citing the reconstruction of the shooting by OSBI investigators, ruled that the suspect had unlawfully posed a “direct threat” to the officer and that McMillin’s deadly response was “legally justified.”
A group of black ministers held a press conference at which they said, among other things, that they were grateful for the openness the department had shown and that they held no ill will toward McMillin. Even so, in light of his two shootings, they recommended that he be permanently removed from street patrol “for his safety and the community’s safety.”
In one-on-one meetings with the pastors, Eskridge explained why it would not be appropriate to punish an officer who had justifiably acted to save his own life and, potentially, the lives of others in the vicinity that fateful day at the church. “After that, they backed off of that recommendation,” Eskridge says.
“Most important, I’m very satisfied that we had the ability to deal with all this in a mutually respectful way that did not get overheated.”
“We believe that our community’s best days are ahead of us,” one of the ministers told reporters. “We don’t have to be a community that’s out of control, that’s consumed by riots. We took the approach that says, ‘Let’s communicate first and try to see how well we can work together.’ ”
Though not publicized, MPD did have a contingency plan in place in the event of civil disturbances, Wood says. Primed to supply personnel if needed, neighboring agencies, the state highway patrol, and the National Guard all provided MPD’s SWAT supervisor with emergency contact numbers for their personnel and a list of equipment each agency could bring to a callout.
Although never implemented, even this preparation, too, had a positive result. “It was discovered,” Wood says, “that there was a vast shortage of gas masks and many of those who had masks did not have filter cartridges for them.”
Jihadin wrote: I actually blame Brown friend that swore that Brown had his hands up and trying to surrender. Holder and Obama were "influence" by that idiot statement.
If that's true they are idiots for believing the dudes friend over a police officer. The dude could barely speak Enligsh and has dreadlocks...I'm sorry - that's not a credible witness.
stanman wrote: Not excluding anyone, you wall in the police and all the other city services right along with the rest of Ferguson. Let the city tear itself apart and only open up the gates once the smoke clears and all the animals have killed each other. (both citizens and local government)
At what point do we send in Batman to save the day?
stanman wrote: Not excluding anyone, you wall in the police and all the other city services right along with the rest of Ferguson. Let the city tear itself apart and only open up the gates once the smoke clears and all the animals have killed each other. (both citizens and local government)
At what point do we send in Batman to save the day?
Batman won't be enough. Send Konrad Curze.
I watched a centipede...walking down the edge... of a straight razor...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: No one cares about the real narrative anymore. They only care for what is best at the time.
They could pull a martial law and only allow in residents with actual ID.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No one cares about the real narrative anymore. They only care for what is best at the time.
No... the Narratives™ still exists...
For instance, the population of Ferguson is 67% black, yet we know that the city government and its police department are overwhelmingly white.
The DOJ and the media point to these facts as defacto evidence of racial discrimination, but they ignore a plethora of facts, such as that in 2012 just 6% of blacks turned out for municipal elections.
The non-black turnout was 17%, while also abysmal... was still three times that for blacks.
The sad thing is that the blacks in Ferguson have it in their powah to completely control Ferguson's city government... but they first have to vote.
But no... evidently, violent 'revolutions' is the name of the game. Mostly coming from non-residence.
Most damning thing about this report, is:
a) There is no indictment.
b) The perverse motives of using the po po to generate "revenues".
I want to challenge the modus operandi of local governments using tickets as a means of extortion for revenue purposes.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No one cares about the real narrative anymore. They only care for what is best at the time.
No... the Narratives™ still exists...
For instance, the population of Ferguson is 67% black, yet we know that the city government and its police department are overwhelmingly white.
The DOJ and the media point to these facts as defacto evidence of racial discrimination, but they ignore a plethora of facts, such as that in 2012 just 6% of blacks turned out for municipal elections.
The non-black turnout was 17%, while also abysmal... was still three times that for blacks.
The sad thing is that the blacks in Ferguson have it in their powah to completely control Ferguson's city government... but they first have to vote.
But no... evidently, violent 'revolutions' is the name of the game. Mostly coming from non-residence.
Most damning thing about this report, is:
a) There is no indictment.
b) The perverse motives of using the po po to generate "revenues".
I want to challenge the modus operandi of local governments using tickets as a means of extortion for revenue purposes.
Vote? No...Loot stores? Yes...Okay that about sums it up doesn't it?
Maybe they can. Our cops can't shoot the broad side of a barn, and thats before nonsense like NY's 13lb Glock trigger pulls.
Europeans may believe that because IIRC the LEOs over there that are actually issued firearms are supposedly well trained. It always baffles me the way so many PDs here in the US spend so little time, money and effort on weapons training. The cops I know who are good shots learned that skil primarily with their own time and money.
Maybe they can. Our cops can't shoot the broad side of a barn, and thats before nonsense like NY's 13lb Glock trigger pulls.
Europeans may believe that because IIRC the LEOs over there that are actually issued firearms are supposedly well trained. It always baffles me the way so many PDs here in the US spend so little time, money and effort on weapons training. The cops I know who are good shots learned that skil primarily with their own time and money.
Weapons training is not cheap. It costs a lot of money. Police departments routinely aren't given enough money to do frequent training, and then when they take other measures to gather funds... well we get discussions like this.
Maybe they can. Our cops can't shoot the broad side of a barn, and thats before nonsense like NY's 13lb Glock trigger pulls.
Europeans may believe that because IIRC the LEOs over there that are actually issued firearms are supposedly well trained. It always baffles me the way so many PDs here in the US spend so little time, money and effort on weapons training. The cops I know who are good shots learned that skil primarily with their own time and money.
Weapons training is not cheap. It costs a lot of money. Police departments routinely aren't given enough money to do frequent training, and then when they take other measures to gather funds... well we get discussions like this.
Is it really a lack of funds or is it a lack of priority in the allocation of funds? A lot of govt depts claim they lack funds but when you look at their budgets is amazing what they choose to spend money on.
I tried to have my friend, who was arguing shoot the leg. I was ten feet away and gave him a BB gun to shoot me with.
I stood, not moving, in the cross position. He couldnt hit me.
Then I told him to hit my chest. And he could.
at ten feet AWAY. Imagine farther, or moving.
Now he is arguing "Use a Tazer"
hotsauceman1 wrote: I tried to have my friend, who was arguing shoot the leg. I was ten feet away and gave him a BB gun to shoot me with.
I stood, not moving, in the cross position. He couldnt hit me.
Then I told him to hit my chest. And he could.
at ten feet AWAY. Imagine farther, or moving.
Now he is arguing "Use a Tazer"
hotsauceman1 wrote: We didnt record it.
Im not stupid.
I mean, it is anecdotal with someone who only ever shot a lasertag gun, but when he was told center mass, he hit.
I was referring to the taser. You're going to go through the same steps with a taser, right?
Take it the the wood line. What happens in the wood line stays in the wood line. Also drink water. Figure I mention something before you two whip out something to measure
If its between getting not getting shcoked for SCIENCE and being a man
*Hands in Man Card"
But in all seriousness. What is the effective range of a tazer? and, if they are holding a gun, with finger on the trigger, cant the finger involuntarily clamp up?
Maybe they can. Our cops can't shoot the broad side of a barn, and thats before nonsense like NY's 13lb Glock trigger pulls.
Europeans may believe that because IIRC the LEOs over there that are actually issued firearms are supposedly well trained. It always baffles me the way so many PDs here in the US spend so little time, money and effort on weapons training. The cops I know who are good shots learned that skil primarily with their own time and money.
Weapons training is not cheap. It costs a lot of money. Police departments routinely aren't given enough money to do frequent training, and then when they take other measures to gather funds... well we get discussions like this.
I think we did the math on here once during one of the "X federal agency gets 500,000 9mm rounds, why do they need that many rounds" discussion a few years back. Once we actually counted how many LE officers they had the giant pile of bullets was enough to let all of them shoot something like 25 rounds a month at the range.
Ammo can run up the budget fast. I know what I spend when I go to the range, and I'm not a department full of officers.
If its between getting not getting shcoked for SCIENCE and being a man
*Hands in Man Card"
But in all seriousness. What is the effective range of a tazer? and, if they are holding a gun, with finger on the trigger, cant the finger involuntarily clamp up?
Firstly, you never bring a taser to a gun fight. If you do, well... you probably won't live long enough to worry about finger clamping, range, etc...
The taser is a less lethal option to use in a situation where the risk of deadly force is not present.
Maybe they can. Our cops can't shoot the broad side of a barn, and thats before nonsense like NY's 13lb Glock trigger pulls.
Europeans may believe that because IIRC the LEOs over there that are actually issued firearms are supposedly well trained. It always baffles me the way so many PDs here in the US spend so little time, money and effort on weapons training. The cops I know who are good shots learned that skil primarily with their own time and money.
Weapons training is not cheap. It costs a lot of money. Police departments routinely aren't given enough money to do frequent training, and then when they take other measures to gather funds... well we get discussions like this.
I think we did the math on here once during one of the "X federal agency gets 500,000 9mm rounds, why do they need that many rounds" discussion a few years back. Once we actually counted how many LE officers they had the giant pile of bullets was enough to let all of them shoot something like 25 rounds a month at the range.
Ammo can run up the budget fast. I know what I spend when I go to the range, and I'm not a department full of officers.
Just for everyone elses knowledge, 25 rounds a month is nothing.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But that is what people dont understand. They think a tazer is just like a gun, stops someone cold/
Well, if everyone was possessed of that mystical thing called sense, this world would be a much better place.
There is a very simple rule that all parents should teach your children. When a man with a firearm tells you to do something, do it. Whether or not the shooting ends up being justified, the chance of a shooting actually happening will plummet if you don't antagonize that person.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But that is what people dont understand. They think a tazer is just like a gun, stops someone cold/
Well, if everyone was possessed of that mystical thing called sense, this world would be a much better place.
There is a very simple rule that all parents should teach your children. When a man with a firearm tells you to do something, do it. Whether or not the shooting ends up being justified, the chance of a shooting actually happening will plummet if you don't antagonize that person.
That is what I tell people. Dont resist arrest or insult the officers. It the arrest is unlawful, you can take their buts to court and get reprimations.
Prestor Jon wrote: Reuters has reported that the two cops that were shot were not part of Ferguson PD but were officers from other departments that had been sent to augment the police presence in Ferguson because of the large protest that was occurring there.
Prestor Jon wrote: Reuters has reported that the two cops that were shot were not part of Ferguson PD but were officers from other departments that had been sent to augment the police presence in Ferguson because of the large protest that was occurring there.
That sucks :-/
Yup.
The unrest has over-taxed the Ferguson PD, such that the area departments are "filling in" as much as they can.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I tried to have my friend, who was arguing shoot the leg. I was ten feet away and gave him a BB gun to shoot me with.
I stood, not moving, in the cross position. He couldnt hit me.
Then I told him to hit my chest. And he could.
at ten feet AWAY. Imagine farther, or moving.
Now he is arguing "Use a Tazer"
The effective range of a taser issued to a LEO is 35 feet (civilian version is 15 feet). I can't find a good source as to the accuracy of the taser, but it is worth nothing that it is a one shot device and would need reloaded if the intended target was missed. Given the short effective range if you intended target has a knife (much less a firearm) then missing may have very serious repercussions.
I am a big advocate for all the less-lethal options out there, but it is important to realize the limitations.
1) Less-lethal doesn't always work.
2) Less-lethal isn't always appropriate and lethal options will have to be used.
3) Less-lethal can in fact be lethal.
Just for everyone elses knowledge, 25 rounds a month is nothing.
gak, I'm not sure I'd even waste my time at the range if I was going to fire anything less than around 200 pistol rounds.....
Less if I'm shooting clays, obviously. I put 200 through between 4 rounds of skeet and 4 rounds of trap one day last fall; needless to say I won't be doing that again.
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.
Its always interesting when people get shot in the shoulder and its treated like a non-dangerous wound in film.
You've got a major artery in your shoulder that leads to your arm, its right where people usually get shot in movies too. You can bleed out incredibly fast if that's where you get shot.
Grey Templar wrote: Its always interesting when people get shot in the shoulder and its treated like a non-dangerous wound in film.
You've got a major artery in your shoulder that leads to your arm, its right where people usually get shot in movies too. You can bleed out incredibly fast if that's where you get shot.
It's similar to how anybody on TV can use a tiny needle and syringe to just jump up from behind someone and inject them with whatever right into the jugular, but when I try to start an IV there I have to have the person laying flat with their head pointing towards the ground and then I still miss half the time.
d-usa wrote: It's similar to how anybody on TV can use a tiny needle and syringe to just jump up from behind someone and inject them with whatever right into the jugular, but when I try to start an IV there I have to have the person laying flat with their head pointing towards the ground and then I still miss half the time.
I mean; I accidentally gave my first IV perfectly in combat lifesaver school; and it took like five tries before i did it right again - so it could happen.
Not sure how they going to spin the sentiment around "well, it's not right, but I understand why they did it, ....police injustice, ....blah blah" now that the shooter seems to be saying that he was actually shooting at some other guys in a feud instead of shooting at the cops.
He's a regular "protester" on the scene who claims that he was shooting at someone else, and not the police.
Via twittah:
St. Louis County PD ✔ @stlcountypd
Follow
Jeffrey WIlliams: 20 yrs old. Suspect is on probation for receiving stolen property. He did acknowledge firing the shots. #Ferguson
1:54 PM - 15 Mar 2015
Williams, a north St. Louis County resident, was on probation for receiving stolen property, McCulloch said. "I think there was a warrant out for him on that because he had neglected to report for the last seven months to his probation officer," he said.
Online state court records show a man by the name of Jeffrey Williams at the address police provided Sunday was charged in 2013 with receiving stolen property and fraudulent use of a credit/debit device
Williams, a north St. Louis County resident, was on probation for receiving stolen property, McCulloch said. "I think there was a warrant out for him on that because he had neglected to report for the last seven months to his probation officer," he said.
Online state court records show a man by the name of Jeffrey Williams at the address police provided Sunday was charged in 2013 with receiving stolen property and fraudulent use of a credit/debit device
Well, if it was indeed a handgun, then his story may be true, that he wasn't shooting at the police officers. I'd still say it would take a true marksman to hit their intended target from that range, with a hand gun.
I live in Northern Ireland and the people who shot our police force, blew shopping centres up, massacred people in churches, kidnapped families and made the husbands drive human bombs while they sat with a gun to the mans wife's head are now in control of the country.... We had to give them it or they would continue the butchery. Be careful America it feels like you are on a cliff edge.
Knockagh wrote: I live in Northern Ireland and the people who shot our police force, blew shopping centres up, massacred people in churches, kidnapped families and made the husbands drive human bombs while they sat with a gun to the mans wife's head are now in control of the country.... We had to give them it or they would continue the butchery. Be careful America it feels like you are on a cliff edge.
Knockagh wrote: I live in Northern Ireland and the people who shot our police force, blew shopping centres up, massacred people in churches, kidnapped families and made the husbands drive human bombs while they sat with a gun to the mans wife's head are now in control of the country.... We had to give them it or they would continue the butchery. Be careful America it feels like you are on a cliff edge.
We're nowhere near that.
In fact, Dreadclaw69 was from Ireland before moving here to the states recently... so, he can pipe in to say that we don't have the same sort of violence here.
Knockagh wrote: I live in Northern Ireland and the people who shot our police force, blew shopping centres up, massacred people in churches, kidnapped families and made the husbands drive human bombs while they sat with a gun to the mans wife's head are now in control of the country.... We had to give them it or they would continue the butchery. Be careful America it feels like you are on a cliff edge.
We're nowhere near that.
In fact, Dreadclaw69 was from Ireland before moving here to the states recently... so, he can pipe in to say that we don't have the same sort of violence here.
EXCEPT if there's a hockey game and there are a bunch of Canadian spectators. They just lose it...
Knockagh wrote: I live in Northern Ireland and the people who shot our police force, blew shopping centres up, massacred people in churches, kidnapped families and made the husbands drive human bombs while they sat with a gun to the mans wife's head are now in control of the country.... We had to give them it or they would continue the butchery. Be careful America it feels like you are on a cliff edge.
As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles and spent almost 30 years of my life there I would respectfully disagree. You cannot with any degree of honesty compare the long sectarian conflict that existed in Ireland and Northern Ireland with the current political climate in the United States
We all forget the rioting and destruction of football stadiums in UK after a rival lost? They take rioting serious over there and in a given time span they make their opinions heard in 24 hours
You had the release of the Justice Department report that, while clearing officer Wilson and debunking “Hands up don’t shoot,” hit the police department for racial practices which led to protests, resignations, the shooting of two police officers and, last weekend, the arrest of Jeffrey Williams, the shooter.
But in all the news coverage, protests, and resulting spin, there is one aspect of this story that, for several reasons, is worthy of a lot more attention before it’s forgotten: the outrageous use of policing as a city revenue stream.
The City’s emphasis on revenue generation has a profound effect on FPD’s approach to law enforcement. Patrol assignment an schedules are geared toward aggressive enforcement of Ferguson’s municipal code, with insufficient thought given to whether enforcement strategies promote public safety or unnecessarily undermine community trust and cooperation.
This practice sets up a perverse reward system if you are a cop, the report explained:
Officer evaluations and promotions depend to an inordinate degree on “productivity” meaning the number of citations issued.
And the courts aren’t helping either:
The municipal court does not act as a neutral arbiter of the law or a check on unlawful police conduct. Instead the court primarily uses its judicial authority as the means to compel the payment of fines and fees that advance the City’s financial interests.
This is not a new issue to some. Rand Paul,for example, has talked about it for a while, most recently at Bowe state university in Maryland:
“Several cities in Missouri, over a third of their budget is gotten by fines,” Paul said. “In Ferguson, there’s 21,000 people. Last year, there were 31,000 arrests.
Here at Watchdog.org, Arthur Kane wrote about a bill to reign in such abuses in Colorado earlier this year:
Senate Bill 2015-006 would prevent police from taking any assets without a guilty conviction unless there is a settlement with all the parties, including the owner, agreeing to give up the property. The legislation is also likely to discourage police from going to the feds because any money from sold assets would go directly to the state general fund instead of to individual police agencies.
Events in Ferguson havebrought national attention to this issue from many sources, from the libertarian site Reason:
More importantly, however, this report also focused much more on the perverse incentives created in policing when local governments rely on fines levied against residents as a major source of revenue.
It is hard to believe that things have been this bad for so long, yet unknown to the feds until Michael Brown was killed. The DoJ should sue Ferguson, and air all this out in a public courtroom in front of a local jury; as the people have a right to know what the government is doing and has been doing in their names. And the people are entitled to the popular mechanisms–a jury trial–by which to hold a lawless local government accountable.
These findings align with last year’s reporting by The Post’s Radley Balko, who detailed how the jigsaw puzzle of tiny municipalities in the St. Louis area fund their duplicative operations with money squeezed out of the vulnerable. A system of fines, fees and other sanctions can too easily trap those who don’t have the time, knowledge or money to extract themselves from its grip.
All seem united in their outrage at this use of police not to “serve and protect” citizens, but to “tax and collect” from them.
Alas, while this unity in protecting citizens from abuse sounds hopeful in theory, the reality is the outrage over this practice, at least for some, is selective.
You might recall after the murder of two police officers in NYC there was a “Police slowdown” in the city whereby officers refused to use their power as a city revenue source. At the time Glenn Reynolds noted:
The real scandal isn’t that NYC is being denied law enforcement now, it’s that much of that “law enforcement” is really just a system designed to squeeze money out of the citizenry.
Slate: The Police Slowdown Has Cost New York City Millions in Lost Parking-Ticket Revenue Apparently while policies that united left and right in justified outrage are to be condemned when practiced in communities like Ferguson, those same practices, when used to fund the budgets of major cities governed by the left, are not only justified, but are to be defended by the mainstream media as absolutely vital to societal well-being.
Or as a man named Orwell once wrote: “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
Folks want big gov't to bestow all kinds of benefits/services, it comes with costs.
It really isn't hard. You fund all of these services and benefits through various means (to include using police enforcement of traffic laws and/or increased tax revenue). The more you want, the higher the costs. You can make cuts to what the gov't provides and then only fund them at the level needed to provide that.
It is always going to be a balancing act, one that at municipality and county levels can be quite difficult. Each needs to figure out the correct level of services and the appropriate means to fund it for themselves.
CptJake wrote: Folks want big gov't to bestow all kinds of benefits/services, it comes with costs.
It really isn't hard. You fund all of these services and benefits through various means (to include using police enforcement of traffic laws and/or increased tax revenue). The more you want, the higher the costs. You can make cuts to what the gov't provides and then only fund them at the level needed to provide that.
It is always going to be a balancing act, one that at municipality and county levels can be quite difficult. Each needs to figure out the correct level of services and the appropriate means to fund it for themselves.
So if the municipal govt = the Sherrif of Nottingham, who gets to be Robin Hood?
CptJake wrote: Folks want big gov't to bestow all kinds of benefits/services, it comes with costs.
It really isn't hard. You fund all of these services and benefits through various means (to include using police enforcement of traffic laws and/or increased tax revenue). The more you want, the higher the costs. You can make cuts to what the gov't provides and then only fund them at the level needed to provide that.
It is always going to be a balancing act, one that at municipality and county levels can be quite difficult. Each needs to figure out the correct level of services and the appropriate means to fund it for themselves.
So if the municipal govt = the Sherrif of Nottingham, who gets to be Robin Hood?
CptJake wrote: Folks want big gov't to bestow all kinds of benefits/services, it comes with costs.
It really isn't hard. You fund all of these services and benefits through various means (to include using police enforcement of traffic laws and/or increased tax revenue). The more you want, the higher the costs. You can make cuts to what the gov't provides and then only fund them at the level needed to provide that.
It is always going to be a balancing act, one that at municipality and county levels can be quite difficult. Each needs to figure out the correct level of services and the appropriate means to fund it for themselves.
So if the municipal govt = the Sherrif of Nottingham, who gets to be Robin Hood?
The strawman
I think you've got the analogy confused. The strawman isfrom the story about the girl and her dog trying to find a wizard, I'm talking about the anthropomorphic fox who shoots arrows at hippo halberdiers.
So if the municipal govt = the Sherrif of Nottingham, who gets to be Robin Hood?
The strawman
I think you've got the analogy confused. The strawman isfrom the story about the girl and her dog trying to find a wizard, I'm talking about the anthropomorphic fox who shoots arrows at hippo halberdiers.
Nope. No confusion. No one mentioned a Sheriff of Nottingham character, or associated behaviours. What was mentioned was that if people want increased public services it comes at a cost, and that there is a balance to achieve. Therefore you invented a strawman
So if the municipal govt = the Sherrif of Nottingham, who gets to be Robin Hood?
The strawman
I think you've got the analogy confused. The strawman isfrom the story about the girl and her dog trying to find a wizard, I'm talking about the anthropomorphic fox who shoots arrows at hippo halberdiers.
Nope. No confusion. No one mentioned a Sheriff of Nottingham character, or associated behaviours. What was mentioned was that if people want increased public services it comes at a cost, and that there is a balance to achieve. Therefore you invented a strawman
The associated behavior is already a matter of public record:
Between the years of 2010 and 2014, revenues from fines and fees assessed by the Ferguson PD almost tripled, from $1.38M to over $3.0M. As a consequence, the portion of the city’s budget that was comprised by revenue from these fines increased from about 10% to about 25%. Each year the city has budgeted for these increases and clearly ordered the FPD to get them at any cost.
If the local govt is going to send the FPD out to squeeze $3,000,000 of fines out of the 21,000 residents and have the black population pay a disproportionate amount of the cost and do all of it without raising taxes or putting any revenue initiatives on a ballot for a popular referendum that strikes me as oppressive behavior similar to the Sherrif of Nottingham. Unless the people of Ferguson elected officials who ran campaigns on the premise that they intended in massively increase police citations or brought the matter before the people in some other manner.
A controversial conservative activist is being accused of trying to incite anti-police protesters by saying, “I wish I could kill some of these cops,” to provoke them into making outrageous statements.
A former top staffer with Project Veritas, Richard Valdes, said the incident occurred in January, when an undercover operative assigned to infiltrate the protest groups was given a script that included the startling comment.
Valdes said he was fired by the group’s founder, James O’Keefe, for not following through on the bizarre assignment.
Valdes said Veritas assigned a Muslim undercover agent pretending to be anti-cop to attend protest meetings and utter the following statement: “Sometimes, I wish I could just kill some of these cops.
Don’t you just wish we could have one of the cops right here in the middle of our group?”
But the undercover agent refused, according to Valdes.
“I will not say words that will jeopardize my entity, especially when they involve an illegal act of ‘murdering police,’ ” the agent wrote in a Jan. 9 e-mail to Valdes and cc’d to O’Keefe.
Valdes claims O’Keefe, known for hidden-camera tactics against liberal groups, fired him “because he was unhappy with me for being unwilling to strong-arm the guy to do his dirty work.”
Valdes and his lawyer, Arthur Schwartz, are threatening to sue for wrongful termination.
“Project Veritas would never do anything that we believe would incite violence against police officers. Anyone suggesting otherwise is clearly unfamiliar with our body of work,” Veritas spokesman Dan Pollack said.
Prestor Jon wrote: The associated behavior is already a matter of public record:
Between the years of 2010 and 2014, revenues from fines and fees assessed by the Ferguson PD almost tripled, from $1.38M to over $3.0M. As a consequence, the portion of the city’s budget that was comprised by revenue from these fines increased from about 10% to about 25%. Each year the city has budgeted for these increases and clearly ordered the FPD to get them at any cost.
If the local govt is going to send the FPD out to squeeze $3,000,000 of fines out of the 21,000 residents and have the black population pay a disproportionate amount of the cost and do all of it without raising taxes or putting any revenue initiatives on a ballot for a popular referendum that strikes me as oppressive behavior similar to the Sherrif of Nottingham. Unless the people of Ferguson elected officials who ran campaigns on the premise that they intended in massively increase police citations or brought the matter before the people in some other manner.
So no new taxes were implemented. There were no arbitrary laws passed to increase government coffers. People were instead fined for breaking the law. So nothing at all like the Sheriff of Nottingham.
d-usa wrote: NY Post, so take with heavy grain of salt:
A controversial conservative activist is being accused of trying to incite anti-police protesters by saying, “I wish I could kill some of these cops,” to provoke them into making outrageous statements.
A former top staffer with Project Veritas, Richard Valdes, said the incident occurred in January, when an undercover operative assigned to infiltrate the protest groups was given a script that included the startling comment.
Valdes said he was fired by the group’s founder, James O’Keefe, for not following through on the bizarre assignment.
Valdes said Veritas assigned a Muslim undercover agent pretending to be anti-cop to attend protest meetings and utter the following statement: “Sometimes, I wish I could just kill some of these cops.
Don’t you just wish we could have one of the cops right here in the middle of our group?”
But the undercover agent refused, according to Valdes.
“I will not say words that will jeopardize my entity, especially when they involve an illegal act of ‘murdering police,’ ” the agent wrote in a Jan. 9 e-mail to Valdes and cc’d to O’Keefe.
Valdes claims O’Keefe, known for hidden-camera tactics against liberal groups, fired him “because he was unhappy with me for being unwilling to strong-arm the guy to do his dirty work.”
Valdes and his lawyer, Arthur Schwartz, are threatening to sue for wrongful termination.
“Project Veritas would never do anything that we believe would incite violence against police officers. Anyone suggesting otherwise is clearly unfamiliar with our body of work,” Veritas spokesman Dan Pollack said.
I have the same contempt for him as every other person who stood inciting violence.
So someone was assaulted by three young men over the Brown shootings
CNN)When one man sat down next to a second man in a St. Louis light rail car late Monday and asked him his opinion on the shooting of Michael Brown, it was not the beginning of a discussion.
It was the start of an assault, police said.
The second man, who was white, didn't want to answer the question. Then the first man, who was black, boxed him in the face. Two more African-American men joined in the beating, according to a police report.
It was caught on surveillance cameras on the MetroLink train and a passenger recorded it with a cell phone and posted the video online. It has gone viral.
Police confirmed to CNN affiliate KMOV that the online images came from Monday's attack.
Late commute
The victim, 43, was commuting home when a young man in a red T-shirt and cap walked up to him. The victim asked not to be named in media reports.
The man asked to use the victim's cell phone. He declined, and the young man sat down beside him.
"Then he asked me my opinion on the Michael Brown thing," the victim told KMOV, "and I responded I was too tired to think about it right now."
The suspect, in his twenties, stood up.
"The next thing I know, he sucker punches me right in the middle of my face," the victim said. The video showed the suspect unleashing a barrage of punches at the head of the victim, who covered himself with his hand and forearms.
The two other men, also in their twenties, joined in, police said. As the train pulled into a station, a security guard saw part of the beating and alerted police.
The man in the red T-shirt could be seen on video kicking at the victim's face before the train's doors opened and the assailants ran out.
Faces on camera
The train's surveillance cameras captured clear images of their faces, which MetroLink passed on to journalists. Police are looking for the three men.
They face possible charges of third-degree assault, police said. It is a misdemeanor under Missouri law.
The victim was left with bruises on his face and forehead, police said. The first punch dug the frame of his eyeglasses into the skin of his nose, the victim said. He declined to receive medical treatment.
But then there was the emotional pain. On the video, people could be heard laughing while the man was beaten.
"I think it was disgusting that people were sort of laughing and smiling about it," the victim said. "And no one offered to help. No one seemed to call 911."
Condemnation of the beating has spread across social media, including from people who protested the shooting of Brown last year by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. The officer was not indicted in Brown's death. St. Louis alderman Antonio French, a vocal community leader in the aftermath of Ferguson, tweeted his disappointment in the beating.
and I'm a fast reader 
is that supposed to mean exactly?
