Violent protest erupts in Ferguson, MO over deadly police shooting

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

I thought I heard something in the past few days about a weapon discharge inside the police cruiser....

**Kilkrazy**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So we have looters, Anonymous, and Al Sharpton..... this has the potential to get real interesting real fast

Kilkrazy wrote:
How can a helicopter crew hear a gun shot? How can a helicopter crew see a bullet?

There is no way a helicopter crew can know they have been shot at unless there are bullet holes in the aircraft when they land.

There are no statements that there were bullet holes in the helicopters, only that the crowd had been shooting at them.

I am sure people can draw their own conclusions.

Didn't the Police in London have footage from the helicopter of rioters firing at their helicopter during the riots there some years back?

If there was no doubt it would be available on the BBC news website. Since you are proposing it I think you should do the searches.

However it is not clear how the possible existence of footage of shooting at helicopters in London explains the lack of footage of shooting at helicopters in Ferguson.

**daedalus**

Slarg232 wrote:

In the Travyrn Martin (Sorry about spelling) Case, it wasn't a police officer, so while police-being-idiots can be a thing, it wasn't in that case. Also, while no info has been provided, if one of the kids pushed the cop into the car, that's not the policeman doing a bad job either, that's a kid being a "smart guy".

Thing is, I don't normally see it being the style of college bound kids who come from inner city situations and actually have the chance to escape them to do things like assault police officers.

Even then, why was he shot from yards away? Is it standard MO for police to shoot someone not wielding a weapon from 35 feet away? I'm genuinely asking here. It doesn't seem... well, right to me.

As for the color issue, shouldn't a life being ended prematurely, no matter the color of skin of either people involved, be tragic?

I certainly agree with this.

**Laughing Man**

Jihadin wrote:
I thought I heard something in the past few days about a weapon discharge inside the police cruiser....

Official police story is (or was) that Brown was in the car attacking the officer when the first shot was fired. This is, of course, contradicted by every statement given by a witness.

**daedalus**

Laughing Man wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
I thought I heard something in the past few days about a weapon discharge inside the police cruiser....

Official police story is (or was) that Brown was in the car attacking the officer when the first shot was fired. This is, of course, contradicted by every statement given by a witness.

Further, how do you go from a car attacking a police officer to being shot 35 feet away. I don't think I could climb out of however I was in a car fighting someone trained to be able to cope with physical assault to being 35 feet away shot in the span of time it would take for someone to shoot me. No one has made any indication said victim has any prior record, and I think that would be easy enough to dredge up.

**Laughing Man**

In fact, biopics on the kid kind of show the opposite.

**Jihadin**

Gun Powder residue and entry hole in the vehicle would side with LEO version of the events.

snip from Fox

Authorities have been vague about what led the officer to open fire, saying only that the shooting -- which is being investigated by the St. Louis County police at the smaller city's request -- was preceded by a scuffle of some kind with a man in which the officer's weapon discharged once inside a patrol car.

Investigators have refused to publicly disclose the race of the officer, who is now on administrative leave. But Phillip Walker said he was on the porch of an apartment complex overlooking the scene when he heard a shot and saw a white officer with Brown on the street.

Brown "was giving up in the sense of raising his arms and being subdued," Walker told The Associated Press. The officer "had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times." The officer then "stood over him and shot him" after the victim fell wounded.

Dorian Johnson offered a similar account, telling KMOV-TV that he and Brown were walking home from a convenience store when a police officer told them to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk. Johnson said they kept walking, which caused the officer to confront them from his car and again after getting out of the vehicle.

Johnson said the first time the officer fired, he and Brown got scared and ran away.

"He shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he turned around and put his hands in the air, and he started to get down," Johnson said. "But the officer still approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots."

"We wasn't causing harm to nobody," Johnson said. "We had no weapons on us at all."

Walker said that he did not see a scuffle or the circumstances that preceded the first gunshot.

This witness mention one shot (Brown)
Johnson mention seven shots

**daedalus**

Laughing Man wrote:
In fact, biopics on the kid kind of show the opposite.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer’s gun was fired once inside the car during a struggle with Brown, hitting no one, and that the officer then fired multiple times at the 18-year-old as he ran away. Police say Brown tried to take the officer’s gun.

So the gun was fired in the car, and he was then shot in the back as he ran away? Again, is it standard procedure to shoot at someone unarmed running away?

**Slarg232**

At one point, members of the crowd held up their hands, saying, “Don’t shoot me!” as police officers with barking dogs tried to keep order. St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer’s gun was fired once inside the car during a struggle with Brown, hitting no one, and that the officer then fired multiple times at the 18-year-old as he ran away. Police say Brown tried to take the officer’s gun.

“That doesn’t sound like Michael,” Johnson said. “I know he would never do anything like that. I just don’t believe he’d do anything that would cause this whole situation.”

On May 22, Brown walked across the stage inside Viking Hall, accepting a diploma with 114 other classmates. His gown was green. His sash was red.

In his graduation picture, Brown holds an expression of someone who’d just finished an endurance race. He had voiced relief to a number of friends that day, including Raquan Smith.

Because this is a "news" article that is reporting just the facts.

Do we know why the officer stopped them in the first place?

**Kilkrazy**

Presumably there will be lots of forensic evidence. A cartridge case and powder traces inside the car, multiple cartridges outside the car, powder traces on the victim consistent with having been shot once (or twice?) at close range.

**Steve steveson**

Rismonite wrote:

This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.

Anybody that thinks looting and rioting is ok, as a form of protest needs their head checked. Anyone caught looting and rioting probably needs shot.

Anybody that opens their mouth to an officer to say anything other than "yes, sir/maam/officer." probably needs beaten with a nightstick, and then probably shot.

Thats... disturbing to say the least. That kind of belief among some members of the police is acutely one of the issues. "I'm right, do not question me, do what I say". This is why we fight for policing by consent in the UK.

Rismonite wrote:

Obey the law, work, advance your life, and maybe if you ever work hard enough to become a lawyer or politician you can open your face politely to suggest how to make things better and people will listen.

Or, you know, live in a democratic, free and open society.

Laughing Man wrote:
In fact, biopics on the kid kind of show the opposite.

I don't know how much use that is. We have an interesting clash again. Seems to be happening more and more in the US. Half the population believing "The officer was doing his job. All police are perfect" the other half "He was a young boy, promising young football player, never did anything". Someone is wrong, but it seems more often than not it is a more nuanced situation, but both sides stick to a belief in a black and white answer to the issue (For the record, the same is true int he US, just we have far less shootings due to them not being armed by the police and far fewer incidents due to the smaller population).

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Rismonite wrote:
This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.

Anybody that thinks looting and rioting is ok, as a form of protest needs their head checked. Anyone caught looting and rioting probably needs shot.

Anybody that opens their mouth to an officer to say anything other than "yes, sir/maam/officer." probably needs beaten with a nightstick, and then probably shot.

...

It is not your right as an American citizen to question a police officer who is essentially a representation of law which makes order in this country for 99% of us. The police are not your enemy, if you see them as such then you are probably a criminal or need your head checked and maybe also need beaten with a nightstick, tased, and/or shot.

There are bad apples here and there in law enforcement. But entirely too many cases of "this man/women was acting like an idiot and then an officer responded excessively". If you are acting like an idiot towards law enforcement you probably deserve whats coming to you.

Obey the law, work, advance your life, and maybe if you ever work hard enough to become a lawyer or politician you can open your face politely to suggest how to make things better and people will listen.

**MrDwhitey**

Eh, plenty of people are crazy enough to believe gak like that, Scooty.

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
The officer "had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times." The officer then "stood over him and shot him" after the victim fell wounded.

The former sentence could be justifiable, depending. The latter (if true) pretty clearly crosses the line into murder.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

For a minute there, I thought those pictures of police officers were US Marines ready to roll back into Iraq!

**Frazzled**

Breotan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Furthermore, the amount of justifying that seems to be going on in the media is absurd. There's no "justification" to a riot or looting.

Try to loot in my cul de sac and you'll get about 8 rifles open up on you. We don't have looting here.
You got Nike stores in your cul de sac, do you?

No, we do have Girl Scout cookies. Protect the munchies!!!!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For a minute there, I thought those pictures of police officers were US Marines ready to roll back into Iraq!

Yea...why are police wearing camo?

If 40K has taught us anything they should be wearing garrish colors.

**Kilkrazy**

Cheap army surplus following downsizing of the military and reduction in local police budgets?

**Hordini**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For a minute there, I thought those pictures of police officers were US Marines ready to roll back into Iraq!

Clearly not, my good sir!

**Jihadin**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Cheap army surplus following downsizing of the military and reduction in local police budgets?

Those are MARCAM trousers. Like $90(?) for trouser and $90 for top(?) at Clothing & Sales

**Hordini**

Jihadin wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Cheap army surplus following downsizing of the military and reduction in local police budgets?

Those are MARCAM trousers. Like $90(?) for trouser and $90 for top(?) at Clothing & Sales

MARPAT. And I'd be willing to bet that they aren't real MARPAT, but rather an off-brand knockoff.

**Goliath**

Rismonite wrote:
It is not your right as an American citizen to question a police officer who is essentially a representation of law which makes order in this country for 99% of us. The police are not your enemy, if you see them as such then you are probably a criminal or need your head checked and maybe also need beaten with a nightstick, tased, and/or shot.

There are bad apples here and there in law enforcement. But entirely too many cases of "this man/women was acting like an idiot and then an officer responded excessively". If you are acting like an idiot towards law enforcement you probably deserve whats coming to you.

A couple of things:

A) your entire argument is entirely authoritarian, would make Orwell spin in his grave, and is patently disgusting.

B) Black people are disproportionately targeted by police officers in Ferguson; should they just accept this state of affairs where they are unfairly targeted by the police, because if they consider this unfair then they should be beaten with a nightstick, tasted and shot?

LAtimes wrote:Blacks make up 65% of Ferguson's population, yet they accounted for 93% of arrests after traffic stops, 92% of searches and 80% of traffic stops in the city last year, according to a racial profiling report by the Missouri attorney general.

When stopped by police, blacks in Ferguson were twice as likely as whites to be arrested -- even though police found contraband for 34% of whites stopped, versus 22% of blacks -- said Scott Decker, a criminologist on a team contracted by the attorney general's office to compile the data.

Source

C) I repeat, the contents of your post are disgusting.

**Kilkrazy**

I would be interested to know if there actually is a law to prevents citizens from asking questions of policemen in the USA.

It seems most unlikely.

**d-usa**

Rismonite wrote:

This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested to know if there actually is a law to prevents citizens from asking questions of policemen in the USA.

It seems most unlikely.

Nazi standup- knock knock jokes

"Knock knock"
"Who's there?"
"WE ASK THE QUESTIONS HERE!"

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
I thought I heard something in the past few days about a weapon discharge inside the police cruiser....

That is indeed what the police said.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
The officer "had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times." The officer then "stood over him and shot him" after the victim fell wounded.

The former sentence could be justifiable, depending. The latter (if true) pretty clearly crosses the line into murder.

Agreed if that's how it turns out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:

B) Black people are disproportionately targeted by police officers in Ferguson; should they just accept this state of affairs where they are unfairly targeted by the police, because if they consider this unfair then they should be beaten with a nightstick, tasted and shot?

LAtimes wrote:Blacks make up 65% of Ferguson's population, yet they accounted for 93% of arrests after traffic stops, 92% of searches and 80% of traffic stops in the city last year, according to a racial profiling report by the Missouri attorney general.

When stopped by police, blacks in Ferguson were twice as likely as whites to be arrested -- even though police found contraband for 34% of whites stopped, versus 22% of blacks -- said Scott Decker, a criminologist on a team contracted by the attorney general's office to compile the data.
Source

See... this is another example where plain statistics doesn't tell the whole story.

The whites in Ferguson are typically older / retiree families as Ferguson used to be a hopping place back in the days.

The MO State Attorney General publishes a disparity index comparing the racial breakdown of drivers stopped to the racial breakdown of the driving age population.

A "1" means no disparity.

The index for blacks in Ferguson is 1.37.

Statewide, the disparity index is worse for blacks, at 1.59, is higher than in Ferguson.

Frankly, I can name off several areas that DWB is a thing... and Ferguson isn't one of them.

**Hordini**

d-usa wrote:
Rismonite wrote:

This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.

Can you really be charged with just resisting arrest?

**d-usa**

This is the Internet, don't ask questions like that!

I would actually be surprised if you could, but I would also not be that surprised...

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:
This is the Internet, don't ask questions like that!

I would actually be surprised if you could, but I would also not be that surprised...

I'm no LEO, nor lawyer, but I'd suspect that there are VERY limited circumstances where you could be arrested for "only" resisting arrest. One of those times being when police are clearing an illegal demonstration/gathering/riot/protest (because while we all know that there's a 1st amendment right to have demonstrations/protests/gatherings, there are certain procedures that are to be done to ensure public safety)

**whembly**

I'm reading up on the local news... and...

I just can't believe the amount of derping is going on around here.

This story is still in its early stages... and the one thing we can say for sure is that much of what is being reported as breaking news or insider scoops or eyewitness accounts is going to turn out to be wrong.

None of the physical evidence is available yet...

And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable... unless its offered in court under oath and cross-exams. And that goes for both sides.

The “narrative” being adopted by activists and by the media already is getting sickening...

**Hordini**

whembly wrote:

The “narrative” being adopted by activists and by the media already is getting sickening...

Yup. Pretty much. They all "know" so much!