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.

 Ouze wrote:
The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.

On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.

Weren't they all forearm shots and head shots?

Might not mean much, but it seems weird to aim center-mass and hit a giant semicircle (arms and head). But it your arms are up (near your head) it might be more likely to get that pattern (and it would be a much tighter pattern).

I haven't seen the report yet, so just some speculations here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mega_bassist wrote:

 kronk wrote:
ICS?

Incident Command System, maybe?

Yeah.

One person in charge coordinating everything, one person talking to the media, everybody is on the same page. Basic stuff that even your lowly street-cop should be trained in.

 Surtur wrote:
[
All of this leads to bad information given by sources that want viewers so they get money, people jumping to conclusions and the general mass ignorance of the public rather than a more moderate wait and see approach to inform their judgements. I have no idea if the cop did something wrong here and neither does anyone outside of the investigation. We have multiple mixed accounts from biased sources and social activists are more than happy to play the victim-race-oooh-aren't-I-so-progressive-and-not-racist-card to fuel their views and justify their outrages. I'm tired of seeing the same old song and dance being played out and nobody is thinking rationally. The best motive the defense has come up with is "he's a white cop therefore he wants to kill black people" and I don't buy it and neither should anyone else. Racist isn't an adjective to be applied lightly or liberally and yet it is. People justify its use with anecdotes and generalizations and it's just not enough.

I'm gonna stop my rant now. It felt good but it's ultimately pointless.

I agree that there's alot of information still missing and lots of people acting on limited info. Still, the blanket disdain for activists (there are good and bad activists at work and shouldn't be grouped together) and the throwing around of the term "race baiter" against anyone who points out the obvious racial aspects of the situation doesn't help the discussion or reflect reality. We don't know if the cop was racist or influenced by race. However, but denying the reality of how race, factors into the relationship between the police and community in Ferguson is hiding one's head in the sand.

Pointing out racism and the effects of race doesn't make one a "race baiter" any more than being a proponent of law and order makes one a racist.

But you just said that we don't know the officer's motivation. If he was not motivated by race then that really throws a wet towel on the cops vs blacks flare up in this incident. I understand that there is a history here, but that doesn't automatically every encounter a racial issue. If there is evidence that shows the officer has a prejudice past or is unable to sufficiently articulate why he stopped him in the first place, then I am more than willing to jump on the band wagon, but I want some proof first.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.

On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.

Weren't they all forearm shots and head shots?

Might not mean much, but it seems weird to aim center-mass and hit a giant semicircle (arms and head). But it your arms are up (near your head) it might be more likely to get that pattern (and it would be a much tighter pattern).

I haven't seen the report yet, so just some speculations here.

Obviously I'm not a ballistics or forensics expert, so this is just an armchair analysis, but arms down, the image shows a grouping that's pretty close for center mass - is that an entry wound in the right thumb/wrist? That would support a charging stance. Especially if his head was down.

If his arms are up, the entry wound is approx 30 inches from center of mass - that's a pretty bad miss. It also doesn't explain that wound on the right thumb/wrist.

One thing to keep in mind is that both sides of the picture are showing what we call anatomical position. So when we are standing naturally we would have the "back" of the forearms and hands facing the front. It sounds weird, but that's one of the quirks of using anatomical position.

So try standing in a way that all the wounds are facing forward and see if that is a natural position.

Then stand there and perform the classic "arms up, hands on your head" position and what is "front" on the anatomical position will actually face front. And in that position the grouping off all the wounds would be much tighter as well. You would also end up with the right hand much closer to the head.

It's in no way solid evidence, but it's something worth considering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I think I have an a anatomic painting dummy thingy, I will try to explain it better with that when I get home.

It could, in theory anyway be that his "hands were up" as in, he had put his hands on/near his head in surrender. Though we don't really have anything to suggest, or not suggest this.

This grouping could also be, in the heat of the moment, the police officer pulling his shot, due to poor shooting mechanics. (as we all know, us layfolk probably get more practice time with firearms than the police do, so some of us may be better in a tense situation overall)

 Ouze wrote:
The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.

On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.

Indeed... but, who really knows?

There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.

On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.

Indeed... but, who really knows?

There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).

Or falling from the first shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
It could, in theory anyway be that his "hands were up" as in, he had put his hands on/near his head in surrender. Though we don't really have anything to suggest, or not suggest this.

This grouping could also be, in the heat of the moment, the police officer pulling his shot, due to poor shooting mechanics. (as we all know, us layfolk probably get more practice time with firearms than the police do, so some of us may be better in a tense situation overall)[/quote
I thought about that as well, that the hand shot was the first and then continuing up with every shot
The only weird thing about that is just the unnatural position of the wounds with regards to how the body is usually positioned.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.

On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.

Indeed... but, who really knows?

There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).

Or falling from the first shot.

True... but, then, the other wound placements would then be very weird. He'd have to have his forearm out forward towards the officer while on the ground?

 d-usa wrote:

Or falling from the first shot.

while we don't have commentary on the angle of many of the shots, perhaps he wasn't falling, but looking down at where he'd just been shot? I wouldn't necessarily think that he'd be falling forward, unless he really was moving toward/charging the officer (at the same time, he wouldnt be doing any hollywood flying back shenanigans either)

I mean, obviously we're all just guessing here.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.

On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.

Indeed... but, who really knows?

There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).

Or falling from the first shot.

True... but, then, the other wound placements would then be very weird. He'd have to have his forearm out forward towards the officer while on the ground?

As though surrendering on the ground? Or charged and got shot and fell? Kronk is many things, but not wise in the way of interpreting autopsy diagrams.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Or falling from the first shot.

while we don't have commentary on the angle of many of the shots, perhaps he wasn't falling, but looking down at where he'd just been shot? I wouldn't necessarily think that he'd be falling forward, unless he really was moving toward/charging the officer (at the same time, he wouldnt be doing any hollywood flying back shenanigans either)

I mean, obviously we're all just guessing here.

But 'CSI: DakkaDakka' is so much fun!

Reconciling the anatomical position of the report with how humans actually stand is the biggest question mark for me. Like I said, I will try to pull out my model on an hour and see if I can explain it better.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.

On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.

Indeed... but, who really knows?

There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).

Or falling from the first shot.

True... but, then, the other wound placements would then be very weird. He'd have to have his forearm out forward towards the officer while on the ground?

As though surrendering on the ground? Or charged and got shot and fell? Kronk is many things, but not wise in the way of interpreting autopsy diagrams.

Could also just reflexively jerked his head down after the first shot.

It's all pretty much just guess work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: do we know how many shots were fired?

Its a bit suprising, in this day and age, that there is not a 360 camera on the cop car, as well as on the cops.

one would think such a thing would do wonders for our justice system. This kind of situation could be analyzed and resovled much easier with the proper documentation.


all the bonus youtube hilarities it would record are just a bonus if russias dash cams are anything to go by.

 easysauce wrote:
Its a bit suprising, in this day and age, that there is not a 360 camera on the cop car, as well as on the cops.

one would think such a thing would do wonders for our justice system. This kind of situation could be analyzed and resovled much easier with the proper documentation.


all the bonus youtube hilarities it would record are just a bonus if russias dash cams are anything to go by.

I think there have been a lot of studies that have shown that police departments who started to use body-cams had a significant drop in use-of-force and a big drop in complaints.

And that's not just because the police feel watched so they beat you less. It's also because people who know that they are recorded being donkey-caves (people police are stopping in this case) will act less like donkey-caves because they know they can't pull the "cop was mean to me" card. And people who act better when confronted by the police will end up requiring less use-of-force.

So more cameras on cops result in people on both sides of the camera acting better. Which seems like it should be a win-win situation.

the problem with most body cams is they are either ridiculously expensive (I think one I heard about one recently was around 900 a unit), or they have very limited field of view. Depending on how they mount to the officer, they are also pretty easy to knock off if there is a fight.

sparkywtf wrote:
the problem with most body cams is they are either ridiculously expensive (I think one I heard about one recently was around 900 a unit), or they have very limited field of view. Depending on how they mount to the officer, they are also pretty easy to knock off if there is a fight.

Imagine this situation if the federal government gave out free/cheep body cams to local PDs instead of free/cheep assault rifles and armored vehicles.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:
the problem with most body cams is they are either ridiculously expensive (I think one I heard about one recently was around 900 a unit), or they have very limited field of view. Depending on how they mount to the officer, they are also pretty easy to knock off if there is a fight.

Imagine this situation if the federal government gave out free/cheep body cams to local PDs instead of free/cheep assault rifles and armored vehicles.

I thought the local PDs had to buy that gak.

Either way, I'm fine with cops wearing body cams. The police cams in their cars are a hell of a lot more than $900, and would save that and then some in legal fees and lawsuits, presumably.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:
the problem with most body cams is they are either ridiculously expensive (I think one I heard about one recently was around 900 a unit), or they have very limited field of view. Depending on how they mount to the officer, they are also pretty easy to knock off if there is a fight.

Imagine this situation if the federal government gave out free/cheep body cams to local PDs instead of free/cheep assault rifles and armored vehicles.

Well when you have over bloated military spending then you have a lot more vehicles and guns to give away, as the military can not possibly use all that is being produced.

The body and car cams suggestion is a very good one. I've heard that many folks in russia have installed their own car cams because it makes it less likely you'll have to pay a bribe to an officer who pulls you over. As for their deployment in the USA, $900 per officer is chump change compared to the costs of just one lawsuit. The City of Chicago routinely pays out multi-million dollar lawsuits for police brutality. One lawsuit could put a camera on the shoulder of every beat cop in the city.

 Surtur wrote:
But you just said that we don't know the officer's motivation. If he was not motivated by race then that really throws a wet towel on the cops vs blacks flare up in this incident. I understand that there is a history here, but that doesn't automatically every encounter a racial issue. If there is evidence that shows the officer has a prejudice past or is unable to sufficiently articulate why he stopped him in the first place, then I am more than willing to jump on the band wagon, but I want some proof first.

My point is not that race explains the shooting, but rather that it explains much (though doesn't justify all) of the reactions that follow. Put another way, racism might not have lit the fuse in this case, but issues relating to race certainly helped fill the powder keg.

 Eilif wrote:
The body and car cams suggestion is a very good one. I've heard that many folks in russia have installed their own car cams because it makes it less likely you'll have to pay a bribe to an officer who pulls you over. As for their deployment in the USA, $900 per officer is chump change compared to the costs of just one lawsuit. The City of Chicago routinely pays out multi-million dollar lawsuits for police brutality. One lawsuit could put a camera on the shoulder of every beat cop in the city.

On the other side of that, people who have dash cams/helmet cams (for motorcycles) have had that information subpoena'd and been convicted of other crimes unrelated to what brought them before the law in the first place (so, instead of one count of speeding, they may be looking at 4 or 5 counts of speeding, with reckless driving, show of speed and other counts... when if they didn't have the camera, they'd only have a $20 ticket to pay )



As for the police having them, I think it's a good idea from multiple standpoints. With that footage, departments can share information and "best practices" as well as, when gak hits the fan, they have the video footage that can be used on trainees later, to hopefully take care of a potential problem with new officers before they ever come up.

And now, for the long anticipated episode of "CSI: DakkaDakka" with guest director d-usa!

So I got my little painting dummy together to try and explain where I was going with the whole "anatomical position" stuff. Here is the results from the preliminary (so we can all agree that these are details that can still change) autopsy:



This is the result displayed in anatomical position. All the entry wounds are in anterior parts of the body. From the way it appears in this diagram all the shots hit him from the same direction. The problem with the anatomical position is that we don't actually stand that way. The way we normally stand is this:


The thumb rotate to the front of the fingers and the arms follow that same rotation. This is more prominent in the forearm, but even the upper rotates in the same direction. This means that areas that are facing the front in anatomical position (such as in the chart) end up facing the body or even the back when we stand naturally. This means that two of the shots seems to be missing from this point of view, but we can find one of the entry points if we look at his back, while the other one is facing his body.



Now that doesn't mean that he could not have been shot in that position. His body was probably in motion, the wound facing his body could have been a grazing hit, all kinds of scenarios here. But if you try a few different poses that all result in the wounds facing the gun you will find that almost none of the feel very natural.

Now the "hands up" scenario that we have heard from a few witnesses:



Now my fancy $3.99 model doesn't let me bend the elbow to fully copy the classic "hands on your head" scenario that we are all familiar with. But unlike the "hands down your side" stance all the surfaces of the body that are facing anterior in the anatomical position (and the diagram) are also facing anterior in this position. Every entry wound comes from the same direction.

As far as grouping of the shots go:

Here is the grouping from the chart:



On paper, pretty much a straight line. Based on his height the spread could easily be 3-4 feet. It's also a weird pattern, but as we stated before he could have been just left of the target when fired the first shot and then moved up and closer to the center line with every subsequent shot. It's a possibility and not something that is unheard off.

The pattern from the "hands up position"



Yes, I know I only covered up to the elbow. I was still basing it on the "hands on the head" scenario that my fancy doll won't comply with. But in this case we have a grouping that is still off-target (although again not missing center mass by very much), but the grouping itself is a lot better. You would end up with a 12"-18" grouping.

Since my "enhance" button is broken this is all I can do at this point. I'm going to guest-direct an episode of NCIS now.

Very nice d!

I think the results of the angles of these woulds would shed more light into what was more probably... Brown with his hands up or Brown charging the officer.

Also... news were leaked that he had Marijuana in his system. I wished people would stop leaking gak like this before the official report is released.

 d-usa wrote:
And now, for the long anticipated episode of "CSI: DakkaDakka" with guest director d-usa!

So I got my little painting dummy together to try and explain where I was going with the whole "anatomical position" stuff. Here is the results from the preliminary (so we can all agree that these are details that can still change) autopsy:

Spoiler:

This is the result displayed in anatomical position. All the entry wounds are in anterior parts of the body. From the way it appears in this diagram all the shots hit him from the same direction. The problem with the anatomical position is that we don't actually stand that way. The way we normally stand is this:

Spoiler:

The thumb rotate to the front of the fingers and the arms follow that same rotation. This is more prominent in the forearm, but even the upper rotates in the same direction. This means that areas that are facing the front in anatomical position (such as in the chart) end up facing the body or even the back when we stand naturally. This means that two of the shots seems to be missing from this point of view, but we can find one of the entry points if we look at his back, while the other one is facing his body.

Spoiler:

Now that doesn't mean that he could not have been shot in that position. His body was probably in motion, the wound facing his body could have been a grazing hit, all kinds of scenarios here. But if you try a few different poses that all result in the wounds facing the gun you will find that almost none of the feel very natural.

Now the "hands up" scenario that we have heard from a few witnesses:

Spoiler:

Now my fancy $3.99 model doesn't let me bend the elbow to fully copy the classic "hands on your head" scenario that we are all familiar with. But unlike the "hands down your side" stance all the surfaces of the body that are facing anterior in the anatomical position (and the diagram) are also facing anterior in this position. Every entry wound comes from the same direction.

As far as grouping of the shots go:

Here is the grouping from the chart:

Spoiler:

On paper, pretty much a straight line. Based on his height the spread could easily be 3-4 feet. It's also a weird pattern, but as we stated before he could have been just left of the target when fired the first shot and then moved up and closer to the center line with every subsequent shot. It's a possibility and not something that is unheard off.

The pattern from the "hands up position"

Spoiler:

Yes, I know I only covered up to the elbow. I was still basing it on the "hands on the head" scenario that my fancy doll won't comply with. But in this case we have a grouping that is still off-target (although again not missing center mass by very much), but the grouping itself is a lot better. You would end up with a 12"-18" grouping.

Since my "enhance" button is broken this is all I can do at this point. I'm going to guest-direct an episode of NCIS now.

Wow. That was a very informative illustration and it really helps to see the "wounds" on a 3-D figure.

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Its a bit suprising, in this day and age, that there is not a 360 camera on the cop car, as well as on the cops.

one would think such a thing would do wonders for our justice system. This kind of situation could be analyzed and resovled much easier with the proper documentation.


all the bonus youtube hilarities it would record are just a bonus if russias dash cams are anything to go by.

I think there have been a lot of studies that have shown that police departments who started to use body-cams had a significant drop in use-of-force and a big drop in complaints.

And that's not just because the police feel watched so they beat you less. It's also because people who know that they are recorded being donkey-caves (people police are stopping in this case) will act less like donkey-caves because they know they can't pull the "cop was mean to me" card. And people who act better when confronted by the police will end up requiring less use-of-force.

So more cameras on cops result in people on both sides of the camera acting better. Which seems like it should be a win-win situation.

You would think so, but remember those magical words when it comes down to it...

Those body cameras? They require a "Tax Hike(TM)". So naturally they end up getting shelved as ideas because those cameras are not cheap at all.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Imagine this situation if the federal government gave out free/cheep body cams to local PDs instead of free/cheep assault rifles and armored vehicles.

This is the world I'd like to live in.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Those body cameras? They require a "Tax Hike(TM)". So naturally they end up getting shelved as ideas because those cameras are not cheap at all.

It's been explained in this very thread that the cameras pay for themselves quite quickly. All it takes is a single settlement that didn't have to get paid out vs one that was, and I imagine most large police departments pay out several such settlements per year. There are other considerations with the cameras, but the cost is really the most minor of them.

 Eilif wrote:
The body and car cams suggestion is a very good one. I've heard that many folks in russia have installed their own car cams because it makes it less likely you'll have to pay a bribe to an officer who pulls you over. As for their deployment in the USA, $900 per officer is chump change compared to the costs of just one lawsuit. The City of Chicago routinely pays out multi-million dollar lawsuits for police brutality. One lawsuit could put a camera on the shoulder of every beat cop in the city.

 Surtur wrote:
But you just said that we don't know the officer's motivation. If he was not motivated by race then that really throws a wet towel on the cops vs blacks flare up in this incident. I understand that there is a history here, but that doesn't automatically every encounter a racial issue. If there is evidence that shows the officer has a prejudice past or is unable to sufficiently articulate why he stopped him in the first place, then I am more than willing to jump on the band wagon, but I want some proof first.

My point is not that race explains the shooting, but rather that it explains much (though doesn't justify all) of the reactions that follow. Put another way, racism might not have lit the fuse in this case, but issues relating to race certainly helped fill the powder keg.

While it may be chump change for Chicago to pay for body cams, most departments are not nearly that large, nor have nearly that many (if any) police brutality lawsuits against them.

For most departments however, it is hugely expensive. For the small department next to me, to have enough cameras for ONE day would almost cost them the same as a new cruiser, which would be a much better use of money for the department and the city. And again, that is only for one day, not for the entire department to have one.

Back to what is going on, thank you d-usa for the demonstration.

Anyone have any concerns with the national guard being called up? I know some of you think it is a good idea, but I am hesitant about it. Military personal usually are trained to shoot and kill, not so much trained in being a police force. What are they going to be able to do that the state troopers couldn't when it comes to prevent violence and looting?

Go for a "helmet" cam.

Edit

Lots of helmet cams not in use being we're no longer in Iraq

Heres something to lighten up the mood here!

 Jihadin wrote:
Go for a "helmet" cam.

Edit

Lots of helmet cams not in use being we're no longer in Iraq

but wouldn't that require a helmet, which makes the police look more like a military, which is one of the concerns about this whole thing?

Was the police militarized when they rode around with BARs and Thompsons?

sparkywtf wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
The body and car cams suggestion is a very good one. I've heard that many folks in russia have installed their own car cams because it makes it less likely you'll have to pay a bribe to an officer who pulls you over. As for their deployment in the USA, $900 per officer is chump change compared to the costs of just one lawsuit. The City of Chicago routinely pays out multi-million dollar lawsuits for police brutality. One lawsuit could put a camera on the shoulder of every beat cop in the city.

 Surtur wrote:
But you just said that we don't know the officer's motivation. If he was not motivated by race then that really throws a wet towel on the cops vs blacks flare up in this incident. I understand that there is a history here, but that doesn't automatically every encounter a racial issue. If there is evidence that shows the officer has a prejudice past or is unable to sufficiently articulate why he stopped him in the first place, then I am more than willing to jump on the band wagon, but I want some proof first.

My point is not that race explains the shooting, but rather that it explains much (though doesn't justify all) of the reactions that follow. Put another way, racism might not have lit the fuse in this case, but issues relating to race certainly helped fill the powder keg.

While it may be chump change for Chicago to pay for body cams, most departments are not nearly that large, nor have nearly that many (if any) police brutality lawsuits against them.

For most departments however, it is hugely expensive. For the small department next to me, to have enough cameras for ONE day would almost cost them the same as a new cruiser, which would be a much better use of money for the department and the city. And again, that is only for one day, not for the entire department to have one.

How much did Ferguson and St. Louis County spend on tear-gas, riot gear, fuel for their big fancy APCs, and overtime after this event?

Most places also wouldn't buy cameras for everybody all at once. You would phase them in and purchase X number each year much the same way you wouldn't buy all new cars all at once, you would replace them every so often.

Back to what is going on, thank you d-usa for the demonstration.

I'm available as an expert witness for hire.

Anyone have any concerns with the national guard being called up? I know some of you think it is a good idea, but I am hesitant about it. Military personal usually are trained to shoot and kill, not so much trained in being a police force. What are they going to be able to do that the state troopers couldn't when it comes to prevent violence and looting?

The national guard is a weird mix of things. They are "military", but they are also part of the community. It's a weird gap between police and military. They get called up frequently to help with disasters, wild fires, floods, etc. So while they push towards the "militarization" aspect of this event, they also have a "we are part of the community and are here to help" role to them. The perception of them is really going to depend on what the actual role is that they will be used for.