stanman wrote:
If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?

I've noticed that cops tend to stop vehicles based on the appearance of the vehicles, the more ghetto looking the car the more likely it is to get stopped. Race aside, poorer people tend to have cars that aren't maintained as well and receive more scrutiny be it simply because the cars look bad and often have safety and operational related issues such as lights being out, bad tires, etc. Those are extremely common reason for conducting traffic stops.

When I was a teenager and college student I always had used cars that were near broken down and plenty ghetto, as a result I got pulled over a lot (despite being white). After I finally ended up getting a new car that wasn't all full of rust holes and beat up looking I haven't gotten pulled over since, not due to any change in driving habits but from reducing the questionable state of my car.

Junky and ill maintained cars are pretty common in poorer neighborhoods and because of their state of dis-repair are going to stopped more often regardless of the drivers race.

 stanman wrote:
If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?

I've noticed that cops tend to stop vehicles based on the appearance of the vehicles, the more ghetto looking the car the more likely it is to get stopped. Race aside, poorer people tend to have cars that aren't maintained as well and receive more scrutiny be it simply because the cars look bad and often have safety and operational related issues such as lights being out, bad tires, etc. Those are extremely common reason for conducting traffic stops.

When I was a teenager and college student I always had used cars that were near broken down and plenty ghetto, as a result I got pulled over a lot (despite being white). After I finally ended up getting a new car that wasn't all full of rust holes and beat up looking I haven't gotten pulled over since, not due to any change in driving habits but from reducing the questionable state of my car.

Junky and ill maintained cars are pretty common in poorer neighborhoods and because of their state of dis-repair are going to stopped more often regardless of the drivers race.

 d-usa wrote:

 stanman wrote:
If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?

I've noticed that cops tend to stop vehicles based on the appearance of the vehicles, the more ghetto looking the car the more likely it is to get stopped. Race aside, poorer people tend to have cars that aren't maintained as well and receive more scrutiny be it simply because the cars look bad and often have safety and operational related issues such as lights being out, bad tires, etc. Those are extremely common reason for conducting traffic stops.

When I was a teenager and college student I always had used cars that were near broken down and plenty ghetto, as a result I got pulled over a lot (despite being white). After I finally ended up getting a new car that wasn't all full of rust holes and beat up looking I haven't gotten pulled over since, not due to any change in driving habits but from reducing the questionable state of my car.

Junky and ill maintained cars are pretty common in poorer neighborhoods and because of their state of dis-repair are going to stopped more often regardless of the drivers race.

One if the key pieces from the different stuff I have read was that they are stopped more often and then let go, aka no laws were broken and they were stopped for no reason. I don't think that one was Ferguson specific.

It's not against the law to drive beat-up old cars, so there is no reason to stop people for driving beat-up old cars.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not against the law to drive beat-up old cars, so there is no reason to stop people for driving beat-up old cars.

 stanman wrote:
If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?

...
...

 jasper76 wrote:
Derp... http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5695748

 motyak wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Derp... http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5695748

For those who don't like clicking on huffpo links (I'm sure there are some of you out there) It's a cop saying 'I'm going to fething kill you' to some bloke walking around filming the goings on with his camera phone.

Hopefully the guy with the camera phone is just some stirrer who got someone to add a bit of a voice track to it, but the way the cops have been handling it so far I'm not really confident of that. Sigh.

d-usa wrote:I have always heard "walking in the street" referred to as jaywalking. If that is the incorrect term I am sorry.

 jasper76 wrote:
Derp... http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5695748

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Or multiple shots from the front, finished with a coup de grace to the head, as is usual in military executions.

But what I am trying to express is that if the policeman was in serious pain and danger, he could easily have reacted by shooting as hard and fast as possible at his assailant, and hit him multiple times with the end result of an execution style of shooting.

An execution-style murder, also known as Chicago-style murder and execution-style killing, is an act of criminal murder where the perpetrator kills at close range a conscious victim who is under the complete physical control of the assailant and who has been left with no course of resistance or escape

 CptJake wrote:
If he was following his training (specifically in regards to firing) he would have been shooting as 'hard and fast as possible' hitting him multiple times. Generally you are trained that IF you are firing you are going to fire until the target goes down and is no longer a threat. You don't fire a round, evaluate where it hit and what damage it may or may not have done, then repeat as necessary. Pain or lack of pain may have an effect on how well you shoot.

Robert recently posted an article on a question posed to a guest by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer:

“On Thursday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked guest [lawyer] Jeffrey Toobin why police weren’t instructed to ‘shoot to injure, instead of kill,’ talkingpointsmemo.com reports. “Blitzer’s questions arose during a discussion on the unfurling conflict in Ferguson, Mo. over the fatal police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. ‘They often shoot to kill,’ Blitzer said of police. ‘Why do they have to shoot to kill? Why can’t they shoot a warning shot in the air, scare someone off if they think they’re in danger. Why can’t they shoot to, injure, shall we say? Why do they have to shoot to kill?’”

Blitzer’s question is, sadly, all too common . . .


Americans are treated to a steady stream of good guys purposely and casually wounding bad guys, usually in the shoulder. On TV and in the movies, such beyond-Olympic-level shooting always disarms and incapacitates the bad guy, and when the good guy is similarly wounded, they are barely inconvenienced and heal with amazing speed.

Not only is this sort of shooting incredibly dangerous to good guys and innocent bystanders, it’s almost always legally disastrous. In addition, any survivable gunshot wound may have life-long health implications. As regular readers may remember from an earlier article, one shoots to stop an attacker, to immediately–to whatever degree that is possible–cause them to cease the hostile actions that made the use of deadly force legally permissible. For the purposes of this article, we’ll assume that all legal burdens have been met. The good guy, under the laws in force when and where he has to shoot, is legally in the right when he pulls the trigger. But how is he going to accomplish his purpose: stopping the bad guy?

There are three primary means of stopping a human being:

Neural damage
Breaking the skeleton
Exsanguination
There are, however, many other considerations.

1) Neural Damage: causing trauma to the brain usually causes immediate cessation of hostile action. In fact, SWAT marksmen try for a brain stem shot whenever possible. They try to hit a hostage-taker exactly where the brain and brain stem meet, at the base of the rear of the skull. If properly placed, a bullet to this spot will cause the potential killer to drop as though a light switch had been thrown. Even if they have their finger on the trigger of a gun, they will not be able to pull it.

Unfortunately, this area is a very small target. In fact, relatively speaking, the human head is also a small target, particularly if it’s moving at all. Notice too that I’m talking about a highly trained marksman making the shot with a scoped, highly accurate rifle, almost always with the benefit of a spotter and from a supported position. Accurately shooting a handgun at the same target, even at close range, is much more demanding.

In addition, the target will seldom present the back of his skull to the shooter and stand still long enough for a perfect shot to be made. Marksmen commonly have to estimate where that tiny spot is while shooting from the front, side, above or below, or various angles of the same.

2) Breaking the skeleton: while breaking a femur or the pelvis, for example, will cause most people to drop to the ground, they may very well still be capable of pulling a trigger. And if so, have merely been rendered less mobile, not stopped. Making such shots with any degree of reliability with a handgun is exceedingly difficult, not only because such targets are small, but also because people move more or less constantly and the precise location of a major, load-bearing bone in a given person’s leg may be difficult, at best, to determine. It’s also particularly difficult because, compared with rifle ammunition, most handgun ammunition lacks the power to reliably break large bones.

3) Exsanguination: someone shot in an artery, or even the heart, may have up to three minutes of useful consciousness if they are truly determined to kill you regardless of the damage they suffer in the attempt. However, once sufficient blood is lost, the resulting drop in blood pressure will inevitably lead to unconsciousness and ultimately death.

Of course, a combination of these three primary effects may be more effective and faster in stopping hostile action.

Fortunately, such matters are not only physical, but psychological. Many people, upon receiving even an easily survivable gunshot wound, immediately drop and cease hostile action due to the “OMG! I’ve been shot!” response. Others–thankfully relatively few–may absorb ridiculous numbers of bullets which might slow, but not stop them, as they try to continue their deadly attacks. This is frequently assisted by drugs present in their system. Such people eventually succumb to one or more of these effects, but “eventually” is not helpful or comforting if they are attacking you.

The best course of action is to aim for “center mass,” or the part of the torso at or around the sternum, and fire enough rounds to force the attacker to stop. It’s the cumulative affect of blood vessel damage, neural shock, and psychological shock that will have the greatest effect, therefore more than one round may be necessary.

Keep in mind that it is always a good idea, even if you cannot avoid or escape a potential deadly force situation, to do your best to avoid shooting. Always remember that when the justification to shoot ends, the shooting immediately ends.

You must never think about “shooting to wound,” let alone try to do it. The law doesn’t require it, and it will be highly likely to backfire for several significant reasons. Obtaining the desired stopping effect with a shot that inflicts only a non-mortal wound is highly unlikely and could conceivably enrage an attacker who will then press an attack he might have otherwise abandoned. The necessary physical damage and psychological effect is simply not there, and making such a shot accurately is highly unlikely.

In fight-or-flight situations, among the first abilities human beings lose–which accompany time distortion, tunneling and hearing loss–is fine muscle control. This makes it very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the intention to shoot someone effectively in a small portion of the body so as to immediately disable them, to say nothing of actually carrying out that intention. For most people, it’s simply physically impossible. There are many documented incidents of police officers–people supposedly highly trained in marksmanship and the use of deadly force–emptying their handguns at criminals doing the same from ridiculously close range. When the gunsmoke cleared, both weren’t touched; every round missed. Hitting center mass will be more than hard enough, but with proper training and practice, attainable.

An additional concern is that in the heat of battle, many people suffer serious wounds, but are unaware of it until the danger has passed. Despite suffering multiple gunshot wounds that might eventually kill them, they didn’t so much as feel the bullets hit them. Some people may be so high on drugs they’re incapable of feeing anything. Shooting an arm or leg will likely do nothing more than make a dangerous felon who’s intent on killing you somewhat less mobile, but no less deadly. Hitting center mass will maximize the probability of quickly stopping a dangerous attacker—whether they feel it or not.

Also, substantial legal liability may attach. If you were so cool and detached that you could shoot someone in the knee, did you really have sufficient reason to shoot them in the first place? If you really thought that you were in mortal danger, why did you take the time to shoot them someplace that any reasonable person should know wouldn’t reliably stop them?

Yes, stopping them will likely result in their death, but you didn’t intend to cause their death. You intended only to stop them from causing yours. That they subsequently died is regrettable, but they made that choice and forced it upon you. You aren’t the attacker, but an innocent victim who will be affected for the rest of your life by the action they brutally forced on you.

In all cases, if you shoot at all, you shoot to stop, and you accomplish this by delivering a sufficient volume of accurate fire to that part of the body most likely to cause them to stop. When the threat has stopped, you immediately stop.

At this point, you may find yourself experiencing some degree of revulsion. If so, good for you. You have a conscience. I can’t say often enough that no moral, rational human being wants to harm or kill another. Violence is cruel, nasty, hateful and bloody, but the choice is simple and stark: do you prefer to be alive and unharmed, or bleeding, perhaps dying on the ground, at the mercy of someone cruel and inhuman enough to attack you? Which alternative would you prefer for those you love? Which of these outcomes is morally superior?

Deadly force encounters aren’t scripted scenes in movies. They’re as deadly serious as any human interaction can be, and the loser frequently winds up assuming ambient temperature. Leave shooting to wound to the movies. An action hero’s job is to sell popcorn, and they don’t have to aim and shoot under pressure. They can afford the luxury of shooting to wound. You can’t, regardless of what Wolf Blitzer thinks.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 stanman wrote:
If the majority of the population in that town is black and they form the majority of traffic stops in that area, how is that disproportionate?

...
...

Suppose 60% of the town are black, and 80% of the traffic stops are black people. Do you see the logic?

It has been widely noticed that cops have a tendency to stop drivers and pedestrians on the basis of the appearance of their skin colour.

 stanman wrote:

Suppose a city has 100k people, 60% of those are blue and 40% are orange. Maybe the blue people rack up 80% of the traffic stops, by the raw numbers it may seem that they are being targeted more frequently. But it could be that those neighborhoods are patrolled more frequently and so more stops are performed there skewing the numbers. Other factors might impact things as well, suppose that the majority of the Orange people live within access to trains or other public transportation and due to having a different commuting style only 50% of them actually drive. Suddenly the percentage of drivers stopped isn't quite that far apart.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its getting personal. No need for that. We already all know how this is going to end, don't we, friendo...

I'd like to think you were flipping a quarter while saying that.

 jasper76 wrote:
When I was high school age in the Baltimore area, there was a common 'tough guy' routine whereby kids would walk in the middle of the road, and stare down and threaten drivers riding by. I know 2 kids (kids at the time) who got arrested for jaywalking for this, so I think it may have a broader meaning at least in practice than just crossing the street at the wrong place.

FERGUSON, Mo. — Members of the Missouri National Guard who were deployed by the governor arrived on Monday and immediately began to police call spent brass and cigarette butts around the police command center at a nearby mall, Duffel Blog has learned.

Local leaders and Guard officials have assured the public that soldiers would only fill this type of limited role.

“We’ll continue to ensure a neat and orderly appearance of the command center and nearby areas,” said Guard Capt. William Strothers. “We also have enough paint, rakes, and sand to have a really nice rock garden complete by the time we leave here.”

Other Guard duties will include setting up a coffee mess in the command tent and a car wash in order to raise money for the battalion ball held later this year. But not all Guardsmen were excited to hear about their duties.

“Well this just totally blows,” said Private First Class Rory Watson, as he dejectedly polished one of his three tactical knives. “I thought we’d be military advisors for the police. You know, like in Iraq. I came here to get some, not sell unit t-shirts to cops.”

Still, many soldiers were excited to be deployed to FOB Red’s BBQ in Ferguson. Sgt. First Class Ron Donaldson, who has never deployed prior to events there, is supervising a morale patch design contest with fellow Guardsmen.

“This one has Al Sharpton on it,” said Donaldson, showing some of the proposed designs. “Once we settle on a good design we’re going to convince our lieutenant to authorize us to wear it. We’re also going to try and be approved to get a riot suppression badge. Hmmm … badges.”

Ferguson police say they are delighted to have the National Guard along side them.

“I think it’s great they’re here,” said one officer. “I sure as hell don’t know how to maintain all these surplus tanks and flamethrowers we bought from the military with our end of the year funds.”

 jasper76 wrote:
@frazzled - Yeah, I imagine alot of what flies in Baltimore wouldn't fly in Texas, and vice versa

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


“Well this just totally blows,” said Private First Class Rory Watson, as he dejectedly polished one of his three tactical knives.

 jasper76 wrote:
You're upset with the wrong state. South Dakota....everything wrong with the country finds its source in South Dakota.

 d-usa wrote:
One if the key pieces from the different stuff I have read was that they are stopped more often and then let go, aka no laws were broken and they were stopped for no reason. I don't think that one was Ferguson specific.

It's not against the law to drive beat-up old cars, so there is no reason to stop people for driving beat-up old cars.

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

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

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Woah... Looks like things are completely under control now:

FERGUSON, Mo. — Members of the Missouri National Guard who were deployed by the governor arrived on Monday and immediately began to police call spent brass and cigarette butts around the police command center at a nearby mall, Duffel Blog has learned.

Local leaders and Guard officials have assured the public that soldiers would only fill this type of limited role.

“We’ll continue to ensure a neat and orderly appearance of the command center and nearby areas,” said Guard Capt. William Strothers. “We also have enough paint, rakes, and sand to have a really nice rock garden complete by the time we leave here.”

Other Guard duties will include setting up a coffee mess in the command tent and a car wash in order to raise money for the battalion ball held later this year. But not all Guardsmen were excited to hear about their duties.

“Well this just totally blows,” said Private First Class Rory Watson, as he dejectedly polished one of his three tactical knives. “I thought we’d be military advisors for the police. You know, like in Iraq. I came here to get some, not sell unit t-shirts to cops.”

Still, many soldiers were excited to be deployed to FOB Red’s BBQ in Ferguson. Sgt. First Class Ron Donaldson, who has never deployed prior to events there, is supervising a morale patch design contest with fellow Guardsmen.

“This one has Al Sharpton on it,” said Donaldson, showing some of the proposed designs. “Once we settle on a good design we’re going to convince our lieutenant to authorize us to wear it. We’re also going to try and be approved to get a riot suppression badge. Hmmm … badges.”

Ferguson police say they are delighted to have the National Guard along side them.

“I think it’s great they’re here,” said one officer. “I sure as hell don’t know how to maintain all these surplus tanks and flamethrowers we bought from the military with our end of the year funds.”

jamesk1973 wrote:
You know if black people quit looking black and acting black maybe racism will go away.