• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. Any criminal defense lawyer that doesn't advise his black clients to answer "Because slavery" during allocution is really dropping the ball.

True. Then again ignoring the decades (centuries) of racial discrimination in (parts of) the United States is unrealistic. The police were a means of enforcing segregation and discrimination, violently at times, and the distrust of the police (and perhaps police institutional racism in some parts of the country) runs deep and will be difficult to reverse.

Regardless of the facts of the case, there is a large group of people know just *know* that this is yet another case of anti-black police brutality. That same mentality exists here in the UK as well. In the UK there is good historical justification for that point of view.
 
I think I'm possibly the one person in the thread who feels that if Brown assaulted the officer (especially if this was to the point of skull damage as is rumored) and attempted to gain control of the officer's service weapon, then the officer had every right to believe an attempt had been made on his life, and that a person who would try to kill a cop was a danger to society in general if he escaped... and I would support him gunning down Michael Brown even if Brown had been running away the entire time.


I think it's exceedingly likely that you're the only person in this thread who thinks that. Not much to say about it except that I'm glad the law categorically disagrees with you. I'm quite happy with cops not being allowed to be judge, jury and executioner based on nothing more than their personal opinion of whether or not someone is "a danger to society in general."
 
I sort of don't agree with it, I was merely just pointing out that it is a reasonable position I can respect others taking.
Sorry if there was ambiguity in my statement...I meant I agree with the people taking this position.

I think I'm possibly the one person in the thread who feels that if Brown assaulted the officer (especially if this was to the point of skull damage as is rumored) and attempted to gain control of the officer's service weapon, then the officer had every right to believe an attempt had been made on his life, and that a person who would try to kill a cop was a danger to society in general if he escaped... and I would support him gunning down Michael Brown even if Brown had been running away the entire time.

I'm ignorant when it comes to when officers can fire their guns...but I always felt it's not right shooting at someone's back. Am I wrong here?

If Brown had gotten away and then forced his way into a nearby house owned by a black single mother, and had demanded she help him hide from the police there... but then the cops found out he'd gone in there anyway, and there had been a stand off... and Brown ended up with a knife to her throat in a hostage situation, and she ended up dead as a result... how many in that same community would've been going on and on about "are you serious? the cops had an opportunity to stop this man and knew he was dangerous and they let him get away?"

There would certainly be an uproar in the community, but c'mon...Mike Brown was a Gentle Giant, I don't think he'd be taking hostages! ;)
 
I think it's exceedingly likely that you're the only person in this thread who thinks that. Not much to say about it except that I'm glad the law categorically disagrees with you. I'm quite happy with cops not being allowed to be judge, jury and executioner based on nothing more than their personal opinion of whether or not someone is "a danger to society in general."

"Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," David Klinger, a University of Missouri-St. Louis professor who studies use of force, told Vox. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect's committed a serious violent felony."

Wilson had probable cause to think Brown had committed strong-arm robbery, a violent felony (though you might argue it isn't a "serious" one, not sure I'd agree...) and had personally witnessed and experienced Brown's second violent felony that day, the assault and attempted murder of a police officer.
 
It's interesting to see how the presence of a gun alters circumstances. With the storekeeper, it's an assault and a robbery. But with the cop and a gun, it's now an attempted murder, and shortly thereafter, a justifiable homicide. Guns change things, even when only the good guy has one.
 
This is a fast-moving case and a fast-moving thread.
As I was catching up over morning coffee, these two posts caught my attention

[ . . . ]Bullets don't always do what you think that they must do. Odd things can happen once they hit flesh and bone, especially the skull which has the best chance of containing it what with it's shape, thickness and all of that watery flesh inside to absorb energy.

I don't know if that applies here but it is something to consider.

I'm sorry for your loss and grateful you shared this information.



Firing six shots from a semi-automatic pistol doesn't take long at all - about the same time it would take for someone to register that they've been shot and either stumble or double over, putting the head at where center mass would have been just in time for the final shot to enter the skull cap.
We can see a lot of blood on the right side of the shirt, imo.

My point is about the blood we would see elsewhere if Brown took a bullet "under his right wing" at the car door.

We should/could have markers of Brown's movements/positions in blood drops.

That would tell us a lot about events.

[ . . . ]I believe that the reason we see officers and on occasion armed civilians "overshoot" as judged from afar or the armchair is that no matter how many times they're instructed during training the average joe has been conditioned by popular fiction to believe that in the event they fire a weapon in defense and make a solid hit on their attacker they will observe the individual react dramatically, but no such reaction is likely.

I'd advise anyone interested in the subject matter to get a copy of the VHS or DVD Deadly Weapons, a tape originally intended to be instructional for LEO's. The video was created by Rich Davis, owner of Second Chance body armor and the inventor of soft body armor.

Among actual live fire testing of many different common pistol, revolver and rifle cartridges there is a section where Rich shows himself and his assistant (ex-S.F.P.D.) testing body armor the hard way - Rich shoots himself twice with a S. & W. model 629 .44 magnum while wearing one of his Deep Cover soft armor under shirt models - with no effect other than to rip up his t shirt, and Rick then proceeds to shoot Alex twice at point blank range with FAL in 7.62 NATO - an absolute full power rifle cartridge - once with Alex balancing on one foot w/ Alex wearing a vest specifically designed to stop such rounds, and the but strikes do not push him to the rear even while standing on one foot.

For a more lethal example, this video (warning, graphic violence) shows South African Police firing on striking miners up close using the local made Galil variant in 5.56 NATO, the R5

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/aug/16/south-african-police-miners-lonmin

Notice that even with concentrated semi and full auto fire the shot miners are not blown backwards as popular fiction dictates.

I'l tell you from after action interviews with officers who've been through their first lethal force use one of the most common statements is that even though the autopsy shows multiple rounds fired impacted the target the officer in the moment didn't believe they had hit the target at all until the target drops. Even though (in the case of officers I had trained when they came on the job with out agency) they had been instructed that a living target most often shows no physical reaction to projectile impacts they expected otherwise.

FTR, one of the few benefits from surviving gunshot or other wounds is the opportunity to show off the evidence later - better than any tattoo, and much more expensive to acquire.

Thanks for the information; whatever comes of all this, I'll definitely be less ignorant thanks to this thread.
 
Yep, something you won't pretend you have- reasoned posts.

My posts are always done for a reason.

Also he could've tried to close the door while Wilson was trying to get out & caught his head between the door & the car.

Possibly. Still wouldn't justify the shooting in my mind.

As a 55 year old white guy, I agree with the speaker. The ideal Joe Friday view of police work is the cops showing deference to the citizens they deal with. What we have now is cops requiring deference from citizens. I'm not saying that's what happened here, it's just that the reversal in roles is fueling the resentment in Ferguson.

I've encountered this attitude with disturbing regularity. Recall last year when I was frisked by a cop in front of my own house for no reason. "Because I said so" seems to be how they play these days.

Actually my uncle was a cop, he retired as soon as he was eligible in his late forties because he was sick of seeing the worst society has to offer. The stories he told were awful and I felt bad for him. I wouldn't do the same job if you paid me double what he was getting. Luckily during his entire career he never once had to fire his weapon.

Of course none of that has any bearing on the case in Missouri because as any good skeptic knows personal anecdotes aren't really useful.

Now you might have the impression based on my few posts in this thread that I'm very pro police, but that isn't true.
In a past life I had a rather large substance abuse problem that resulted in frequent encounters with law enforcement. Some officers were nice and seemed genuinely concerned about my well being, giving me a break more often than not. Others were much less kind and on a few occasions I was slapped around unjustly (or at least I thought so). To me they were bullies with a badge, but I guess having an attitude and big mouth wasn't really helpful either.

Maybe this particular Ferguson cop's use of force wasn't warranted, if so he deserves a lengthy jail sentence. Problem is we don't know the exact details just yet and I'm willing to wait for ALL of them to surface before I pass judgement, especially after what happened with the Zimmerman case.

If you'd rather jump to conclusions, that's your prerogative.

I haven't jumped to conclusions. I simply needed less information to come to a conclusion.

Also, it might not be true.

Impossible!

Imagine a filled out, 6'4" white guy stomps into a liquor store, grabs a bottle of Jack and waltzes out. The immigrant storekeeper tries to stop him, but the mountain of man grabs a fistful of shirt and grumbles "back off." He saunters down the street pleased with himself, casually disregarding laws big and small and jaywalks when --

A police SUV drives by.

This is Darren Wilson. He's 28, married and black. Sometimes it's difficult being a black man in white community, especially since this community's hostile to the police, but Wilson's been on the force for six years without incident, and even received a commendation for his service.

Wilson tells the jaywalker to stay out of the street, and the two men soon jaw each other. That's when Wilson recognizes the liquor bottle...

[**** goes down]

Wilson and his young wife flee town. They've received death threats.

As they should. Like I've already said armed cops should not be shooting unarmed individuals. I don't care if they are being bull rushed, slammed into cars or incapacitated by the Jedi mind tricks. They only get to use that gun when someone else present has one and intends to use it against them.
 
Like I've already said armed cops should not be shooting unarmed individuals. I don't care if they are being bull rushed, slammed into cars or incapacitated by the Jedi mind tricks. They only get to use that gun when someone else present has one and intends to use it against them.

Absolutely, 100% ridiculous.

I can't remember who it was but some commentator (I believe he was ex law enforcement himself) said in the last week or so something to the effect of:

"Police are dealing with violent criminals as a routine matter of their job, and the only way they can possibly do that and still come home at night is to use greater force than those criminals. Whether that's in the form of multiple officers taking down a single suspect, or using their firearm when someone is a threat under certain conditions. The police do not owe every citizen a fair fight, because if they tried that none of them would survive a year on the job."

Mind you, the important distinction you must keep in mind when reading "the police do not owe every citizen a fair fight" is that they obviously shouldn't be FIGHTING every single citizen in any way. The citizen's responsibility is to act in a civilized, law-abiding manner and comply with the police until the encounter is over. If there's a fight at all, it's almost always the suspect's choice for there to be one.

But the point being made is that when you ask people to protect your society from the violent criminal elements and then send them out into the worst areas, if you additionally ask them to take whatever those violent criminals throw at them, and make killing any of them at any time almost unthinkable... then you're asking them to de-prioritize preserving their own lives, in favor of preserving the lives of violent criminals.

That isn't logical or reasonable.

The crazy guy waving a knife around and refusing to drop it may not have a firearm, but he is dangerous and even if the cops sent 4 large male officers (which aren't always available anyway) who are in great shape and know how to fight... over to him to tackle the guy, one or two of those officers could still end up with a mortal wound as the crazed knife-wielding suspect was taken down. All it takes is one lucky stab into an officer's neck or something.

And that's just it. The criminal only has to win the fight once. The cop is filtering through society seeking out the dangerous, violent criminals and seeking to interact with them deliberately, every day he's on the job. Some days he won't encounter one... but in some areas, it happens an awful lot. You are therefore asking them to be in a position of having to win that fight every time. Those aren't good odds.
 
As they should. Like I've already said armed cops should not be shooting unarmed individuals. I don't care if they are being bull rushed, slammed into cars or incapacitated by the Jedi mind tricks. They only get to use that gun when someone else present has one and intends to use it against them.

How about if they have knives?
 
(much snipped)
But the point being made is that when you ask people to protect your society from the violent criminal elements and then send them out into the worst areas, if you additionally ask them to take whatever those violent criminals throw at them, and make killing any of them at any time almost unthinkable... then you're asking them to de-prioritize preserving their own lives, in favor of preserving the lives of violent criminals.

False choice. Even in this case. Take the lethal means away from the cop and there are still options. Call for back-up, wait in your car. Let the guy get away. Follow him in your vehicle.

The problem here is when the only options suggested are confrontation and escalation; when the only choices lead to kill or be killed. We need to seriously consider changing the game we want to play.
 
My posts are always done for a reason.



Possibly. Still wouldn't justify the shooting in my mind.



I've encountered this attitude with disturbing regularity. Recall last year when I was frisked by a cop in front of my own house for no reason. "Because I said so" seems to be how they play these days.



I haven't jumped to conclusions. I simply needed less information to come to a conclusion.



Impossible!



As they should. Like I've already said armed cops should not be shooting unarmed individuals. I don't care if they are being bull rushed, slammed into cars or incapacitated by the Jedi mind tricks. They only get to use that gun when someone else present has one and intends to use it against them.

We have seen a few examples where a single officer has been overwhelmed by a physically larger, unarmed suspect. They rarely end well for the officer.

There are definitely times when a police officer should shoot an unarmed suspect, imo.

If an officer loses a fight with a suspect, the suspect can take their gun. Something we have also seen.
 
Good. Let's hope so. Wilson must face court.

No, Wilson must face the normal legal process.

That is well under way. The Grand Jury portion of it is supposed to begin today.

This process will determine whether Wilson should go to trial.

In Missouri, felony charges cannot be brought without a cause hearing, or a GJ indictment.
 
I saw a posting on Facebook this evening, purporting to show Brown "paying" for his purchase, by leaning all the way across the counter. Now, I'm pretty sure I've been in hundreds (if not thousands) of stores in my life, and witnessed thousands (if not tens of thousands) of customers paying, and I don't recall a single one paying in anything but an upright position.

Unless they were in a wheelchair. Like the crippled neighborhood orphans Brown was helping.

Was it Travis who posted that on Facebook?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10177552#post10177552
 
LTC8K6 said: They get one free stab, before the cops can shoot them.
SkepticalGreg said: I guess you mean the part where he reaches over and behind the counter, where I'm sure he is putting money in the cash drawer...

et al

you guys are making me laugh which makes me feel a bit guilty, this being a sombre topic and all.
 
False choice. Even in this case. Take the lethal means away from the cop and there are still options. Call for back-up, wait in your car. Let the guy get away. Follow him in your vehicle.

The problem here is when the only options suggested are confrontation and escalation; when the only choices lead to kill or be killed. We need to seriously consider changing the game we want to play.
Because this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e8_1408313026
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom