daedalus wrote:
One of these days, duffelblog is finally going to give me an aneurysm.

SAND HILL, FT. BENNING, GA - Many soldiers and family members are angry over reports of controversial remarks from the Commanding Officer of Fort Benning at a recruit graduation.

Speaking to an assembled crowd of new soldiers and their families at basic training graduation, Maj. Gen. Robert Brown was reported as “extremely hostile.”

His speech began with the “standard fluff” about duty, country, and the privileges of serving when such a small percentage of the country chooses a career in the Armed Forces. The speech took a turn, however, when the General reached a point in his remarks, obviously reused from previous ceremonies.

“Look to your left and right towards your brothers in arms,” said Brown. “You’re all now members of a proud warrior class, and heroes like your fathers before you who-”

The General stopped, took a deep breath and crumpled the sheet before flinging it to the ground.

“Feth it! I can’t read crap like this anymore. Listen up you little bald bastages.”

The newly minted soldiers — trying to stay awake throughout the ceremony — shifted uncomfortably in their seats at the sudden change in tone.

“Some of you Retards won’t make it past AIT [Advanced Individual Training]. You’ll wash out with the rest of the weakness that never should have been here in the first place. Most of you who do graduate will immediately go to combat units and deploy overseas. Many of you will threaten to kill yourselves to get out of real work, although you wont have the balls to actually do it!”

Brown’s tone got softer as he attempted to clarify.

“Don’t get me wrong here. Many of you will actually go fight and engage the enemy in close combat. For that I salute you. It takes a hard motherfether to go kill people you’ve never met just because we say so.”

The General then resumes his “motivational speech” to what he referred to as “the rest of you crap-stains.”

“You’ll most likely spend your deployment sitting on a FOB, manning guard towers, or waiting to go on patrols that get cancelled. I have a reality check for you all. Not everyone in this room is a hero. I don’t give a s**t what the beer commercials say. You drag your buddy out of a grape hut after you’ve stabbed two Taliban in the eyes with a broken MRE spoon then you’re a motherfething American Hero. You clear a trench with nothing but a sack of hand-grenades and your giant brass balls, then you’re a motherfething hero! But walking through the desert for three months without hearing a shot fired in anger and posting pictures in your combat gear doesn’t make you a gawddamned hero! I don’t care what your family says. They’re not heroes. Neither are your fething wives. Hardest job in the Army, my ass! Damn it, I’m too old for this s**t. Feth you all.”

Gen. Brown then threw up his middle finger to the crowd and stormed off the stage, hustling into his waiting staff car.

The silence after his speech was soon broken by wild applause from the assembled Drill Sergeants and Officers responsible for training the young soldiers over the previous ten weeks.

Less enthusiasm was displayed by the families and the new graduates, who stormed the stage and attempted to destroy the auditorium to express their displeasure. The ensuing riot caused over a half-million dollars in damage, and Drill Sergeants were forced to kill 11 Privates in self-defense.

An Army spokesman has said that General Brown will not be scheduled as the keynote speaker for next week’s graduation ceremony.

 cincydooley wrote:
Jesus wolf blitzer. Spoken like an idiot that's never fired a weapon before. Shoot to injure? FFS.

 Crimson wrote:

In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot at the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Which comes down to a difference of approach in law enforcement... Here in the US, not only would that cost an LEO their job, but probably a couple million (minimum) in a civil suit... not to mention, that's just against the Geneva fething Convention (yeah yeah... doesn't apply to police policing their own citizens)

 Crimson wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Which comes down to a difference of approach in law enforcement... Here in the US, not only would that cost an LEO their job, but probably a couple million (minimum) in a civil suit... not to mention, that's just against the Geneva fething Convention (yeah yeah... doesn't apply to police policing their own citizens)

But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up. And no, it is not against Geneva convention to not kill people.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Which comes down to a difference of approach in law enforcement... Here in the US, not only would that cost an LEO their job, but probably a couple million (minimum) in a civil suit... not to mention, that's just against the Geneva fething Convention (yeah yeah... doesn't apply to police policing their own citizens)

But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up. And no, it is not against Geneva convention to not kill people.

Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go.... And the Geneva Conventions have articles in it explicitly about causing undue suffering, which is exactly what a purposeful shot to the leg is. (it's why US military personnel are trained to shoot center mass, not attempt to "knee cap" some turd)

 stanman wrote:
Death by cop scenario? Fuel for the next riot?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Actually, I'd rather think that our system sort of encourages police to not shoot in the first place, however if they must shoot, center mass of the body is the way to go....

And the Geneva Conventions have articles in it explicitly about causing undue suffering, which is exactly what a purposeful shot to the leg is. (it's why US military personnel are trained to shoot center mass, not attempt to "knee cap" some turd)

 stanman wrote:
Death by cop scenario? Fuel for the next riot?

Spoiler:

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

 Crimson wrote:
But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up.

 Crimson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Jesus wolf blitzer. Spoken like an idiot that's never fired a weapon before. Shoot to injure? FFS.

In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.

As of 2014, there are 7700 police officers in Finland. Annually, there are a few hundred crime reports made where one of the police is the suspect and tens of cases in which police officers are convicted of crimes committed whilst on duty. Typically, these cases either concern vehicular collisions in pursuit or the excessive use of force.
In 2006, a 51-year-old police officer attracted a 16-year-old girl to his house by showing her his badge, where he got her drunk and raped her twice. In 2007, an Iranian-born immigrant, Rasoul Pourak, was beaten in a cell at Pasila Police Station, Helsinki. The ill-treatment caused Pourak bruises all over the body, an open wound over his eyebrow, and a fractured skull. In addition, facial bones were broken and the victim was left permanently damaged. One guard participating in the assault was sentenced to an 80-day suspended prison sentence. In 2010, two police officers assaulted a man in a wheelchair in connection with an arrest. The police twisted the man's hands and pushed him backwards causing him to break a femur. In 2013, two policemen were sentenced fines for assault and breach of duty in connection with stamping on a man’s head onto the asphalt thrice. According to the police, the man of Romani descent resisted, yet according to eyewitnesses, the man did not resist. The event was captured in surveillance video, which was stored but somehow destroyed.

 Jihadin wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Death by cop scenario? Fuel for the next riot?

Old news Stan. Strong possibility it was Suicide by police.Already mention by authority they were not armed with a Tazer.

 Peregrine wrote:

The system encourages police to shoot to kill because everyone should shoot to kill. If you are in legitimate danger and justified in using lethal force in self defense (and yes, shooting someone in the leg is lethal force) then shooting to kill is your only option, anything less means you're probably injured or dead. If you have time to screw around with warning shots or shooting to wound or whatever then you weren't in sufficient danger to justify lethal force and you should be facing criminal charges just like if you walked up to a random stranger and shot them in the leg. The only reason to ever shoot to wound is if you're shooting someone to force them to submit and obey you, and I really fail to see how anyone could think that this would be a good thing.

 Jihadin wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
One of these days, duffelblog is finally going to give me an aneurysm.

Can you imagine rioting soldiers...

SAND HILL, FT. BENNING, GA - Many soldiers and family members are angry over reports of controversial remarks from the Commanding Officer of Fort Benning at a recruit graduation.

Speaking to an assembled crowd of new soldiers and their families at basic training graduation, Maj. Gen. Robert Brown was reported as “extremely hostile.”

His speech began with the “standard fluff” about duty, country, and the privileges of serving when such a small percentage of the country chooses a career in the Armed Forces. The speech took a turn, however, when the General reached a point in his remarks, obviously reused from previous ceremonies.

“Look to your left and right towards your brothers in arms,” said Brown. “You’re all now members of a proud warrior class, and heroes like your fathers before you who-”

The General stopped, took a deep breath and crumpled the sheet before flinging it to the ground.

“Feth it! I can’t read crap like this anymore. Listen up you little bald bastages.”

The newly minted soldiers — trying to stay awake throughout the ceremony — shifted uncomfortably in their seats at the sudden change in tone.

“Some of you Retards won’t make it past AIT [Advanced Individual Training]. You’ll wash out with the rest of the weakness that never should have been here in the first place. Most of you who do graduate will immediately go to combat units and deploy overseas. Many of you will threaten to kill yourselves to get out of real work, although you wont have the balls to actually do it!”

Brown’s tone got softer as he attempted to clarify.

“Don’t get me wrong here. Many of you will actually go fight and engage the enemy in close combat. For that I salute you. It takes a hard motherfether to go kill people you’ve never met just because we say so.”

The General then resumes his “motivational speech” to what he referred to as “the rest of you crap-stains.”

“You’ll most likely spend your deployment sitting on a FOB, manning guard towers, or waiting to go on patrols that get cancelled. I have a reality check for you all. Not everyone in this room is a hero. I don’t give a s**t what the beer commercials say. You drag your buddy out of a grape hut after you’ve stabbed two Taliban in the eyes with a broken MRE spoon then you’re a motherfething American Hero. You clear a trench with nothing but a sack of hand-grenades and your giant brass balls, then you’re a motherfething hero! But walking through the desert for three months without hearing a shot fired in anger and posting pictures in your combat gear doesn’t make you a gawddamned hero! I don’t care what your family says. They’re not heroes. Neither are your fething wives. Hardest job in the Army, my ass! Damn it, I’m too old for this s**t. Feth you all.”

Gen. Brown then threw up his middle finger to the crowd and stormed off the stage, hustling into his waiting staff car.

The silence after his speech was soon broken by wild applause from the assembled Drill Sergeants and Officers responsible for training the young soldiers over the previous ten weeks.

Less enthusiasm was displayed by the families and the new graduates, who stormed the stage and attempted to destroy the auditorium to express their displeasure. The ensuing riot caused over a half-million dollars in damage, and Drill Sergeants were forced to kill 11 Privates in self-defense.

An Army spokesman has said that General Brown will not be scheduled as the keynote speaker for next week’s graduation ceremony.

 Lone Cat wrote:

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

This remark is clearly racism. Why you say that their 'culture' is wrongful and deserves discrimination? except the ugly facts that gangster rap usually relates to black population (despite the fact that gangsterism exists in every race, be they black (as portrayed in GTA San Andreas), whites (of different ethnicities... of course!), Asians (Triads and Yakuzas), Hispanics (Usually mexicans but H. Americans may operates in organized crime too!) Indians and so on)

The most violent, brutal, arrogant, and corrupt of the 'Gangstas' NEVER justify Nazism nor Fascism of any form.

 CptJake wrote:

Got any sources on how they train for this, or showing that 'leg shots' are their actual policy?

I am genuinely curious as to how they get proficient at leg shots.

Of course curb stomping some poor gypsy is always an alternative, (and I'm sure there was no race issue/discrimination there right?)

And seriously, hundreds of cases a year against a police force that small? Nice.

 Crimson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Jesus wolf blitzer. Spoken like an idiot that's never fired a weapon before. Shoot to injure? FFS.

In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.

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

Police shootings have made headlines in the US this summer. But what really happens before an officer fires his gun?

The circumstances that led to the death of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, are still unclear. While there is no question that Brown was shot six times by police officer Darren Wilson, there are conflicting stories about circumstance that lead to Wilson pulling the trigger. Was he overzealously shooting at a supplicant Brown, who was unarmed? Or was he defending himself against a violent attack from the six foot, four inch (1.93m) 18-year-old?

When it comes to US police officers firing their weapons, the rules - on paper - are very clear.

"Ultimately you come to your firearm as a last resort," says Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police.

"You would only use that weapon in a situation where you felt your life or the lives of civilians in the area were in danger."

A 1982 Supreme Court case found it illegal to shoot at fleeing felons. Now, officers can only justify firing their weapon at a civilian if they fear the loss of life or limb.

The advent of Kevlar vests and other protective technologies mean that police officers have less reason to fear for their lives than they did in the past.

As a result, the number of killings by police is down 70% in 36 years, says Candace McCoy, a professor of criminal justice at John Jay College in New York. Only a small percentage of the nation's 500,000 police officers are involved in shooting. Most retire without ever firing their gun in the line of duty.

Still, she says, officers are 600 times more likely than a non-officer to kill a citizen, and about 400 people are killed a year by police.
AUGUST 19: Police charge into the media work area with rifles at ready as they try to control demonstrators protesting the killing of teenager Michael Brown on August 19, 2014 in Ferguson, Missour In Ferguson, police have wielded rifles as well as guns that fire rubber bullets and beanbags

While there is no national standard, the state rules and regulations regarding officer's use of deadly force is mostly consistent throughout the country.

Officers are trained on a continuum of force, run through simulations, and constantly required to re-certify in firearms safety,

There are drills and standards and classes. But in the seconds before an officer pulls the trigger, nothing is orderly.

"The officer isn't going through any checklist," says Pasco. "At that point they have to make a split-second decision."

The moment may come after hours of an escalating situation or it might come with little warning.

"You always have to react to a suspects' actions. That's the tough part about it," says Robert Todd Christensen, a use-of-force instructor at Kalamazoo Valley Community College Police Academy in Michigan.

"Cops are always playing the defence, rather than the offense, when it comes to force,"

At that point, the officer has to rely on his training and instincts while trying to control his emotions.
line

"There's an adrenaline that kicks in and there's a split-second syndrome," says McCoy. "Your judgment is not the same as those of us sitting at desks thinking rationally."

Training helps, she says, but it's not perfect.

When law enforcement officials do shoot, they shoot to kill - a measure designed in part to reduce gunplay.

"You hear about 'shoot to wound' by well-meaning people who want to prevent the death of suspects," says Ms McCoy. "That's a very bad idea."

Doing so, she says, would make firing the weapon a less momentous act.

"By saying a police officer must draw the gun only to protect life, you reduce police shootings."

Shooting to wound is also impractical because in the seconds before an officer fires his gun, his or her aim may be anything but true.

"Your heart rate is way up above 200, and you have tunnel vision, you can't even see your sights," says Mr Christensen, referring to the guides on the gun that help locate a target.

"Hit the kneecap? You can't even see a kneecap," he says.

Instead, officers are taught to aim at "centre mass" - the centre of a suspect's chest. That provides a broad target and one that's most likely to eliminate the threat posed by the suspect. It's also most likely to kill.

After a citizen is shot by an officer, that officer becomes the target of an internal investigation, and can be the investigated by the federal government or other outside agencies.

In the large majority of cases, no charges are brought against the officer.

That's in part because in a case of reality versus perception, the police officer gets the benefit of the doubt.

"Maybe he wasn't in danger, but if he reasonably believes he was, he would be justified in shooting," says Ms McCay.

That the same benefit of the doubt is not afforded to innocent men shot by the police is the source of much of the tension in Ferguson, even as the actual details of the shooting are still unclear.

But even if charges are never filed, the officer is not totally unburdened.

"Interview a police officer who has shot someone you will get a sad and damaged person," says Ms McCay.

The use-of-force continuum

Officers are trained to escalate force in response to the situation on the ground. Here are examples of that continuum, abridged from guidelines by the National Institute of Justice.

Officer Presence The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation. Officers' attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.

Verbalisation Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as "Let me see your identification." Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance.

Empty-Hand Control Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation, either grabbing and holding a suspect or using punches and kicks..

Less-Lethal Methods Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation, such as blunt impact tools like batons or chemicals like tear gas

Lethal Force Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.

 jasper76 wrote:
Derp... Methinks the two officers involved in the Kajieme Powell (the guy who is said to have advanced with a knife) shooting are in deep, deep trouble.

(I originally had the story, which includes a video linked, but it is the video of the actual shooting, so I wouldnt want sensitive people to click and see. If interested the videos is available on Huffington Post. It does not correlate with the details of the story given by the police department, and its extremely hard to see how deadly force could be construed as justified).

 Crimson wrote:
In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.

 Crimson wrote:
But then your system is fethed up if it encourages the police to shoot to kill, seriously fethed up. And no, it is not against Geneva convention to not kill people.

 Crimson wrote:
If that is a legal shoot, I don't want' to see what illegal one looks like. These people should not have guns, let alone badges. This is just insane.

 CptJake wrote:
"Use least force possible" has no relation to "Shoot in the leg".

I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg. They all train center mass shooting, and train to shoot to kill if they feel the need to shoot at all. It makes no sense. Why fire a bullet at a limb that (1) is harder to hit, especially if the perp is moving at all and (2) may not actually stop the perp even if hit and (3) could end up killing the perp anyway?

If the situation does not call for killing, there are plenty of better options than leg shooting (pepper spray, stun guns, batons and so on). And those things don't endanger others close by either.

No, the idea of 'firing to wound' is just silly for many reasons.

 Crimson wrote:
In Finland when the police shoots a criminal (which happens rarely), it is most commonly a singe shot in the leg. This seems perfectly reasonable practice to me.

 cincydooley wrote:
Crimson, your comments are pretty laughable and much like Don Lemon, clearly come from someone that's never actually fired or handled a firearm.

 CptJake wrote:
"Use least force possible" has no relation to "Shoot in the leg".

I'm calling Bull crap. No police force I have ever heard of trains for leg shots and has a policy that when an officer decides he/she must pull a trigger they should aim for the leg. They all train center mass shooting, and train to shoot to kill if they feel the need to shoot at all. It makes no sense. Why fire a bullet at a limb that (1) is harder to hit, especially if the perp is moving at all and (2) may not actually stop the perp even if hit and (3) could end up killing the perp anyway?

If the situation does not call for killing, there are plenty of better options than leg shooting (pepper spray, stun guns, batons and so on). And those things don't endanger others close by either.

No, the idea of 'firing to wound' is just silly for many reasons.

 cincydooley wrote:
Crimson, your comments are pretty laughable and much like Don Lemon, clearly come from someone that's never actually fired or handled a firearm. Your aim is to stop someone attacking you. In the Brown case, let's pretend the LEO was trying to "shoot to injure". The arm shots clearly didn't stop him.

The other shoot is, IMO, the definition of a clean shoot.