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.

 Crimson wrote:

 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....

Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.

Well, "most" Law Enforcement jurisdictions/precincts issue non-lethal weapons, like mace/pepper spray, tazers/stun guns, etc. and unless it's a very small town, it's extremely rare than an officer is by him/herself. As a result, if the situation warrants it, they go for the non-lethal methods of subduing and detaining people.

It's a more proper way of "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to "hey, let's shoot a guy in the leg, now we have to arrest him, get him to the hospital where they're going to have to remove the bullet, repair the tissue and give him a bed with guards while he recovers enough to get into court"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 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....

Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.

Well, "most" Law Enforcement jurisdictions/precincts issue non-lethal weapons, like mace/pepper spray, tazers/stun guns, etc. and unless it's a very small town, it's extremely rare than an officer is by him/herself. As a result, if the situation warrants it, they go for the non-lethal methods of subduing and detaining people.

It's a more proper way of "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to "hey, let's shoot a guy in the leg, now we have to arrest him, get him to the hospital where they're going to have to remove the bullet, repair the tissue and give him a bed with guards while he recovers enough to get into court"

What do you mean by an officer being by him/herself?

Because around here, rarely is there more than one officer in a car, occasionally an officer will have a reserve with them. Sure backup is only a few minutes away, but a LOT can happen in a few minutes. And I am not in the middle of no where, I am less than 5 minutes from the center of a major metro area. Minneapolis may actually use two person cars, I don't live close to there so I never see their cars, and the last time I talked to a Minneapolis officer, the conversation was avoiding police chitchat

sparkywtf wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 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....

Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.

Well, "most" Law Enforcement jurisdictions/precincts issue non-lethal weapons, like mace/pepper spray, tazers/stun guns, etc. and unless it's a very small town, it's extremely rare than an officer is by him/herself. As a result, if the situation warrants it, they go for the non-lethal methods of subduing and detaining people.

It's a more proper way of "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to "hey, let's shoot a guy in the leg, now we have to arrest him, get him to the hospital where they're going to have to remove the bullet, repair the tissue and give him a bed with guards while he recovers enough to get into court"

What do you mean by an officer being by him/herself?

Because around here, rarely is there more than one officer in a car, occasionally an officer will have a reserve with them. Sure backup is only a few minutes away, but a LOT can happen in a few minutes. And I am not in the middle of no where, I am less than 5 minutes from the center of a major metro area. Minneapolis may actually use two person cars, I don't live close to there so I never see their cars, and the last time I talked to a Minneapolis officer, the conversation was avoiding police chitchat

Indeed. I rarely see a police unit here with two people in it. I did in LA, and can see that in higher crime areas, but this is effectively a small town.

Here is a good letter to read. Especially for people who think the robbery and the jaywalking stop are unrelated.

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/lifeline-training/open-letter-captain-ronald-s-j

A lot more stories can be added to the end of the list of officers being killed during a stop from a minor violation. If the officer didn't use his firearm, it is very possible that his name would be added the list, and the story never would have made it to the national media.

sparkywtf wrote:
Here is a good letter to read. Especially for people who think the robbery and the jaywalking stop are unrelated.

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/lifeline-training/open-letter-captain-ronald-s-j

A lot more stories can be added to the end of the list of officers being killed during a stop from a minor violation. If the officer didn't use his firearm, it is very possible that his name would be added the list, and the story never would have made it to the national media.

Good find.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 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....

Yeah, that is obviously not working. And the whole idea behind in the leg shot is to use least amount of force necessary, if it was not necessary, they would not shoot. And it is extremely rare taht Finnish police shoots anyone, in the leg or otherwise.

Well, "most" Law Enforcement jurisdictions/precincts issue non-lethal weapons, like mace/pepper spray, tazers/stun guns, etc. and unless it's a very small town, it's extremely rare than an officer is by him/herself. As a result, if the situation warrants it, they go for the non-lethal methods of subduing and detaining people.

It's a more proper way of "least amount of force necessary" as opposed to "hey, let's shoot a guy in the leg, now we have to arrest him, get him to the hospital where they're going to have to remove the bullet, repair the tissue and give him a bed with guards while he recovers enough to get into court"

I live in a fairly sizable area and I have never seen police paired up in vehicles unless one is in training.

Relapse wrote:

I live in a fairly sizable area and I have never seen police paired up in vehicles unless one is in training.

STL has them one to a car. I can't think of a situation I've ever seen them doubled up. Post-Ferguson, I've seen them patrolling two cars at a time, that is, one car as a close tail to the second. Not sure if that's changed since Gencon.

Some of the wealthier/touristy areas of town also employ private security that drive around in what are basically police cars. I've never actually seen those guys close up enough to know if they carry guns on them. I assume that, at least in Soulard, they mostly watch for drunk drivers and then detain/call the real police.

I think the entire media portrayal is a shame. To easily did they claim "racial issues"

Not long ago a college student was shot dead by a LEO because they talked back to the officer, it was caught on the officers car dash cam. The person was parked where they shouldn't be, the officer asked them to step out. The person did, the LEO questioned them, and they replied "No, what are you going to do? Shoot me?" The officer drew their gun and shot their full clip into the person. Race never came up, both were Caucasian.

In florida LEO showed up to a residence, broke in the door without knocking and shot dead an unarmed octogenarian woman. They arrived at the wrong house, the house they wanted was across the street. All involved were Caucasian.

I don't even follow the news and can think of a few other instances I have heard of this.

non subjective facts in Ferguson such as "most of the population is african american" "LEO arrest two times as many african americans as caucasians" In 2010 67% of the pop was african american in fergusan, if LEO are arresting twice as many african americans as caucasians than they are arresting the same % amount from each ethnic group according to 4th grade math. Of course the media didn't bother connecting this information because race card = news time = ratings = $ The media also implies the local police are racist because they are mostly caucasian. This is not an issue with race, but more likely an issue with application. If they showed the applicants per year, by ethnicity, versus the amount of officers hired that would be a relavent stat. As the local mayor has stated they have a hard time finding african american applicants to join the police there. Not a race issue.

the perp was obviously not running from the officer with hands up surrendering before the final shot if all the medical examiners found the shots to be coming from the front, unless the officer has magic JFK bullets that warped around the suspect and hit them from the front.

At 18, if you rob a store and then proceed to walk down the middle of the road you are 1+ of 3 things.

1- Beyond mentally slowed
2- Really really high
3- You have already committed many crimes in your life and do not fear reprisal from LEO and think you are unlikely to be caught.

Intelligent criminals, and I mean a very basically intelligent criminal, avoids further chance to be caught after committing crimes. Like walking on a sidewalk, or walking somewhere that is less travelled. Not the middle of a busy street that is blocking traffic which is why the perp was originally pulled over.

all 3 of the items above for reasons the perp might walk in the middle of the road blocking traffic after committing a crime are the same reasons why the perp might actually charge at a LEO and assault them with intent to disarm.

they should release the toxicology reports of michael brown, as well as open his juvie record. He most likely has one, not based on ethnicity but based on that he committed a crime, and really didn't care that he might get caught.

the real possible issue here is that of possible police brutality and use of excessive or unneccesary force. Which most likely will not be investigated when its overshadowed by public media "race card" frenzy.

People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.

Residential streets are for cars. Not for people to walk in the middle of...

 whembly wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.

Residential streets are for cars. Not for people to walk in the middle of...

Streets are for cars period

Side walks are for walkers only

Cyclist belongs on the streets

One walking down a street in a residential area might meet a Senior with dementia thinking he/she is on I-70

 Jihadin wrote:


Streets are for cars period

Side walks are for walkers only

I live in a residential housing development with no sidewalks. How should I get around the neighborhood?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.

There IS a generally accepted side of a road without sidewalks to walk down.

If no sidewalks exist on the road, it is recommended to walk facing oncoming traffic on the same side of the road as the oncoming traffic. Also, you should get as far to the side of the road as possible to provide additional space between you and oncoming cars.

I'm not sure how that stacks up legally, but I would be intrigued to hear that it is effectively illegal to travel somewhere by foot.

squidhills wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Streets are for cars period

Side walks are for walkers only

I live in a residential housing development with no sidewalks. How should I get around the neighborhood?

By walking along the side of the road and not down the middle.

There were sidewalks.



http://mashable.com/2014/08/15/live-tweet-michael-brown-killing-ferguson/

Missouri rules:
http://mobikefed.org/files/pedtips_pedlaws.pdf

300.405. Pedestrians walking along roadways. (1) Where sidewalks are provided it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. (2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic, which may approach from the opposite direction.

People should know their local jurisdiction in regards to walking/biking laws as they vary state to state.

 Jihadin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.

Residential streets are for cars. Not for people to walk in the middle of...

Streets are for cars period

Side walks are for walkers only

Cyclist belongs on the streets

One walking down a street in a residential area might meet a Senior with dementia thinking he/she is on I-70

So, I take it you've never been in a suburban midwest neighborhood? Basically people walk in them. As there is no other place to walk other than people lawns.

And middle of the street is a very imprecise term. Some people use it to mean anywhere in the street .

So if you walk down the middle of the road we should shoot you? good to know. Marathon day will be a bitch

Yeah, come to Chicago in the city sometime. Sometimes the only place to go IS the street.

And yeah its dangerous, but that is what we live with.

nkelsch wrote:
There were sidewalks.

Spoiler:

http://mashable.com/2014/08/15/live-tweet-michael-brown-killing-ferguson/

Missouri rules:
http://mobikefed.org/files/pedtips_pedlaws.pdf

300.405. Pedestrians walking along roadways. (1) Where sidewalks are provided it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. (2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic, which may approach from the opposite direction.

People should know their local jurisdiction in regards to walking/biking laws as they vary state to state.

I had only seen pictures from the other direction, and didn't see the sidewalk. Still, it's a fairly common thing to see people walking on streets like this in the St. Louis area, city ordinance or no. You're all telling me you've never done this in your own neighborhood? I find that hard to believe.

squidhills wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Streets are for cars period

Side walks are for walkers only

I live in a residential housing development with no sidewalks. How should I get around the neighborhood?

Like every other red blooded American...DRIVE!

I greatly appreciate the men and women of the Missouri National Guard for successfully carrying out the specific, limited mission of protecting the Unified Command Center so that law enforcement officers could focus on the important work of increasing communication within the community, restoring trust, and protecting the people and property of Ferguson. As we continue to see improvement, I have ordered the Missouri National Guard to begin a systematic process of withdrawing from the City of Ferguson.

-Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/jay-nixon-national-guard_n_5698038.html

So that seems like a good sign to me that the situation is stabilizing.

 fire4effekt wrote:
So if you walk down the middle of the road we should shoot you? good to know. Marathon day will be a bitch

Its more like if you walk down the middle of the road we should have you get off the middle of the road.

Also marathons would have special permits and have streets actually closed so that they can be run on...


Isnt putting all those candles in the middle of a road a traffic hazard?

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
People keep saying walking down the middle of the street like it was I-70 or something. It was a residential street with houses and apartment complexes and no sidewalks. Ones with 25 mph speed limits and usually have kids playing in them. If I was yelled at by a cop every time I did that as a kid, well, I'd have been yelled at a lot.

Residential streets are for cars. Not for people to walk in the middle of...

Streets are for cars period

Side walks are for walkers only

Cyclist belongs on the streets

One walking down a street in a residential area might meet a Senior with dementia thinking he/she is on I-70

So, I take it you've never been in a suburban midwest neighborhood? Basically people walk in them. As there is no other place to walk other than people lawns.

And middle of the street is a very imprecise term. Some people use it to mean anywhere in the street .

Where I live you walk down the side of the road if there are no sidewalks. Note however, there WERE sidewalks. He was just acting like a

 fire4effekt wrote:
So if you walk down the middle of the road we should shoot you? good to know. Marathon day will be a bitch

Well this is a pretty clueless comment. Really?

I can honestly say I've never walked down the middle of a Multi lane, lined street. But then, you know, white privilege or something.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
There were sidewalks.

Spoiler:

http://mashable.com/2014/08/15/live-tweet-michael-brown-killing-ferguson/

Missouri rules:
http://mobikefed.org/files/pedtips_pedlaws.pdf

300.405. Pedestrians walking along roadways. (1) Where sidewalks are provided it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. (2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic, which may approach from the opposite direction.

People should know their local jurisdiction in regards to walking/biking laws as they vary state to state.

Clearly he was being a pain enough to have a cop actually stop. Regardless the cop did stop (which, amazingly they can do) and then everything went badly.

Anyone see the video of the guy with the knife the police shot a few miles away? That was just crazy. He was actually trying to flank them.

If a cop ask you to move to sidewalk while walking down the middle of the street would you continue walking down the middle of the street or make a 90 degree turn to go to closest sidewalk and more likely move back to the middle of the street when LEO is out of sight?

After committing a series of crimes 10 minutes prior at a quiktrip and currently walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic behind myself, which is reported, if an officer were to approach me in their vehicle and ask me to get off the street, I would have my friend answer "but we are just walking down the street our grandmothers house. We are almost there so we are just going to keep walking."

If the officer dared to demand I get to the sidewalk I would then charge them and attack them in their car.

Should anything bad happen to myself, my friend will inform the media that it was race related and completely unjustified.

blaktoof wrote:
After committing a series of crimes 10 minutes prior at a quiktrip and currently walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic behind myself, which is reported, if an officer were to approach me in their vehicle and ask me to get off the street, I would have my friend answer "but we are just walking down the street our grandmothers house. We are almost there so we are just going to keep walking."

If the officer dared to demand I get to the sidewalk I would then charge them and attack them in their car.

Should anything bad happen to myself, my friend will inform the media that it was race related and completely unjustified.

I only know of one Strong Arm Robbery. What other crimes did he do prior to that?

 fire4effekt wrote:
So if you walk down the middle of the road we should shoot you? good to know. Marathon day will be a bitch

he was stopped for being in the middle of the street,

he was SHOT because he committed a dangerous assault that threatened the officers life

Thats a completely false assertion to make that he was shot for walking in the street.

He wasn't shot. He STOLE those bullets from the police officer! The fiend!

(this is sarcasm)

 easysauce wrote:

 fire4effekt wrote:
So if you walk down the middle of the road we should shoot you? good to know. Marathon day will be a bitch

he was stopped for being in the middle of the street,

he was SHOT because he committed a dangerous assault that threatened the officers life

Thats a completely false assertion to make that he was shot for walking in the street.

*raises hand*

Ohh, ooh! I know this one!

Is it strawman?

Did I get that one right?