# American police must be doing something wrong...



## hairychris (Aug 14, 2014)

... when people from Gaza are tweeting in support of folks in a Missouri town.

Well done "land of the free"!



EDIT: Arresting & tear-gassing the press and local politicians is also a fantastic move.


----------



## vilk (Aug 14, 2014)

come on, dude. you're not even going to post a link?


----------



## hairychris (Aug 14, 2014)

You mean that it's not hit the news over there?

This dude got arrested:

In Ferguson, Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery gives account of his arrest - The Washington Post

And reporters from Al Jazeera got tear-gassed and their equipment seized/interfered with

RAW video of Al Jazeera America crews hit with tear gas

Twitter's gone mental.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 14, 2014)

They aren't "American police," they're local cops. This isn't a Federal thing. You can't really attribute some quality to "American police" when there isn't really a set of rules and regulations all police forces across the country are required to follow. There are Federal cops, State cops, County cops, City cops, Highway Patrol cops, and probably others still, and _none_ of them are accountable to one particular overarching governing body that I'm aware of.

If you want to talk about a flaw with "American cops," that'd be it. Not that they're all power hungry bigoted idiots or whatever, rather that there isn't any Federal oversight where there perhaps should be.

That, however, gets into a States' rights vs Federal regulation debate pretty quickly.

Note I'm not defending cops at all here, or even making any sort of statement about this particular situation. I'm not hearing alot about it over here in Korea. I'm just giving my canned response to a non-American making a statement about "American cops."


----------



## hairychris (Aug 14, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> They aren't "American police," they're local cops. This isn't a Federal thing. You can't really attribute some quality to "American police" when there isn't really a set of rules and regulations all police forces across the country are required to follow. There are Federal cops, State cops, County cops, City cops, Highway Patrol cops, and probably others still, and _none_ of them are accountable to one particular overarching governing body that I'm aware of.
> 
> If you want to talk about a flaw with "American cops," that'd be it. Not that they're all power hungry bigoted idiots or whatever, rather that there isn't any Federal oversight where there perhaps should be.
> 
> ...



By definition they are "American police" though...

I'm well aware of state/fed and local police differences but right now they're representing US law enforcement on an international stage.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 14, 2014)

hairychris said:


> By definition they are "American police" though...



Sure, in the same way that Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are "American actresses." Should we lump all American actresses in with them?



hairychris said:


> I'm well aware of state/fed and local police differences but right now they're representing US law enforcement on an international stage.



Only because the international stage still somehow refuses to recognize that the US is more like the EU than it is like any individual EU country. Which country represents Europe as a whole on the international stage? If you saw some Greek cop doing something stupid, would you say "LOL European cops!" or "LOL Greek cops!" ?


----------



## F1Filter (Aug 14, 2014)

Program 1033. Our US tax dollars hard at work.


----------



## hairychris (Aug 14, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Sure, in the same way that Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are "American actresses." Should we lump all American actresses in with them?



Nope, but trying to claim that they aren't "American actresses" is also a fail. They're poor examples of actresses, but them being shit in a movie would be exactly the same definitionally as these guys being shit at policing.



Grand Moff Tim said:


> Only because the international stage still somehow refuses to recognize that the US is more like the EU than it is like any individual EU country. Which country represents Europe as a whole on the international stage? If you saw some Greek cop doing something stupid, would you say "LOL European cops!" or "LOL Greek cops!" ?



Funnily enough I don't have a passport with nationality "European" written on it.

This is a local police force, but in America, staffed by Americans, and ultimately falling under your state and finally federal (constitutional) legal system. Not saying that states rights isn't thrown in but they aren't as independent as European countries even with a shared currency.

Oh, and the military kit that they're using was almost certainly supplied by the Pentagon, so throw some grief their way too.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 14, 2014)

hairychris said:


> Nope, but trying to claim that they aren't "American actresses" is also a fail. They're poor examples of actresses, but them being shit in a movie would be exactly the same definitionally as these guys being shit at policing.



But saying they aren't "American police"isn't a fail, because there is no such institution. They are police, yes, and they are Americans, yes, but they aren't American police that are part of cohesive enough a unit that would make discussing them in such a way make any sort of sense.

Perhaps I should be using some sort of capitalization there to distinguish between "American police" and "American *P*olice" to make the difference more clear? Should we come up with some sort of label to make it clear that there would be a difference between "A police officer whose nationality is American" versus "a police officer employed and governed by the federal government of the USA?" 





hairychris said:


> Funnily enough I don't have a passport with nationality "European" written on it.



Funnily enough, I didn't say the US is _exactly_ like the EU. I'm not so retarded as to think that European is a nationality. I haven't been representing myself very well on these forums if anyone could ever think that of me. I was just pointing out that non-Americans often point their finger at things as being representative of America as a whole because that same governmental body, law, bill, or whatever would be a national issue in their own country, whereas in the US it's often a State thing, not a Federal thing. The police are one of those things.



hairychris said:


> This is a local police force, but in America, staffed by Americans, and ultimately falling under your state and finally federal (constitutional) legal system. Not saying that states rights isn't thrown in but they aren't as independent as European countries even with a shared currency.



The federal (constitutional) legal system doesn't cover every potential thing that can happen in the country. The federal laws take precedence in cases where the are State and Federal laws covering the same issue, but there are far more cases of things covered exclusively by state law than there are of things covered by State and Federal or Federal alone. 

You know whose conduct on the job is covered by federal law? Federal police. You know whose conduct on the job _isn't_ covered by federal law? State and local police. If a state cop breaks a federal law, he'd be prosecuted by the federal government. If he does something that isn't against any federal laws, the federal government wouldn't have any grounds whatsoever to prosecute him for it. It's not their jurisdiction. 

Again, though, it'd be completely fair IMO to criticize that lack of large-scale oversight for something with as much potential to be abused as State or Local police authority.



hairychris said:


> Oh, and the military kit that they're using was almost certainly supplied by the Pentagon, so throw some grief their way too.



That I can't speak on with authority, but I was recently reading something about how after the wind down of the war in Iraq and using allocations allowed by bills/laws/whatevers passed in the wake of 9/11 and America's terrorism bogeyman, State and local police departments have been given access to used and/or decommissioned military equipment.

I _do _think that's ridiculous and unnecessary, and I would agree with any criticism leveled the US' way about it. Since it's something started at the Federal level (I think, don't quote me on that though), it'd be absolutely fair to criticize America or the US government for it. With that, though, not all police forces or departments have that sort of stuff, and I'm not at all sure how it's determined who can get what.


----------



## liberascientia (Aug 14, 2014)

An innocent teenage guy is dead for absolute no reason other than the colour of his skin and you guys are arguing over grammar? :/


----------



## Randy (Aug 14, 2014)

For somebody who post as intelligently as Tim, there's nothing more annoying than being on the other side of him in a debate.


----------



## Choop (Aug 14, 2014)

Gotta agree with Chris here...even though not all police in America are united under one specific organization, to the rest of the world they do appear to represent America's response to the situation at hand. :\


----------



## Sicarius (Aug 14, 2014)

Then that's the fault of the person believing the stereotype.


----------



## Necris (Aug 14, 2014)

While I agree with Tim that this specific police force isn't representative of police forces across the country it is a fact that as a result of the "war on terror" police forces have become extensively militarized across the country by taking part in Program 1033 (as referenced by F1Filter). It's gotten to the point where it is frankly insane and then sprinted past that point. Big city, small town of 250 people? Doesn't matter, if you're a law enforcement agency you're eligible to take part in this program that gives your police force surplus military gear.

And of course like a child with a cool new toy, they proceed to use their brand new surplus military gear when given even the slightest excuse because no-one can tell them "No, this is only for (specific situation)".


----------



## flint757 (Aug 14, 2014)

All Texans are cowboys, all politicians are scum, all lawyers are in it for the money, all college kids are lazy frat boys, all police are corrupt, all religious people are nuts, California is exactly like Texas (after all it is all America amirite?). Stereotyping is fun. I think it can be agreed upon that this is not necessarily a nationally affiliated problem, but very much a local one. So can we move on? Great.

Now, for some more stereotyping; I'm not surprised something like this would happen in a state like Missouri. You know what's more sad than this happening? Some people actually thinking it is okay that the police acted in this manner. Just read the comment section in the article linked above to get an idea. There are people commenting there who think they are perfect and as such people who 'cross' the law don't deserve to be treated in a legally appropriate manner (after all they should have moved faster apparently ). Those kind of people infuriate me about as much as these dickhead cops do; people who think it is okay to mistreat people because they disagree politically or otherwise.

What I did find rather enlightening in this situation is that it seems politicians up on the hill finally agreed on something, that local police way overstepped on this one. Considering how much the police tend to get away with, since they tend to get the benefit of the doubt, I can understand why things escalated the way they did that's for sure. To those involved the whole thing felt like a big cover up no doubt.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 14, 2014)

Randy said:


> For somebody who post as intelligently as Tim, there's nothing more annoying than being on the other side of him in a debate.



I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted .


----------



## loqtrall (Aug 14, 2014)

Can't we all just agree that they're police officers that just happen to live in America?


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 14, 2014)

Well, this took a weird turn.  

If we take the thread title and change it to "local police force" can we start over? That's a discussion worth having. And it IS crazy that someone in a war zone like Gaza would send support to these folks over here, where we should be having a pretty normal time. You know, being the leaders of the free world and all.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 14, 2014)

Yeah, sorry about that, guys . I just have a weird pet peeve about people criticizing something about America in general when it has more to do with something that's much more specific, _especially_ when the person doing the criticizing isn't an American. It's petty, I know, and perhaps I should work on not letting it bother me so much so I don't vomit my thoughts all over what could otherwise be an interesting discussion .

On the topic, though, any good links for summarizing the whole situation that aren't politicized in some way, and are generally unbiased? I don't hear too much over here in Korea unless I seek it out specifically, so it'd be cool to know where to look.


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 14, 2014)

Guys, c'mon, they are Americans, thread should be titled problem with Americans.
But then again, they are also humans so maybe should be, the problem with the human species....


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 14, 2014)

I think police world wide should stand down for a week, see how much everyone hates on them then.... Might give people a bit of for thought on just how important they are, better yet, have a bunch of whinging whining civvies jump in and do their job for a while, see what it's really like for an officer of the law...


----------



## flint757 (Aug 14, 2014)

The police being a necessary part of society that, when done right, make the world an overall better place doesn't give them a free pass to do whatever they want and having a hard job doesn't mean they can do no wrong. 

Everyone makes mistakes, some worse than others, and we are all held accountable for them, intentional or not.

[EDIT]

Also, someone posted this from the onion on my Facebook feed. I thought it was rather hilarious. 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/tips-for-being-an-unarmed-black-teen,36697/


----------



## asher (Aug 15, 2014)

Will try to get through some sources tomorrow. They might have to be blog posts though as they make good collections of twitter posts.

Will also grab WaPo and HuffPo about their reporters being assaulted and arrested.

Post-racial America my left nut.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 15, 2014)

Sometimes Unfortunate Things Happen In The Heat Of A 400-Year-Old Legacy Of Racism | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 15, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Sometimes Unfortunate Things Happen In The Heat Of A 400-Year-Old Legacy Of Racism | The Onion - America's Finest News Source



You realise the onion is a mock news site and so that link supports nothing.....


----------



## hairychris (Aug 15, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Yeah, sorry about that, guys . I just have a weird pet peeve about people criticizing something about America in general when it has more to do with something that's much more specific, _especially_ when the person doing the criticizing isn't an American. It's petty, I know, and perhaps I should work on not letting it bother me so much so I don't vomit my thoughts all over what could otherwise be an interesting discussion .



My tongue was partially in cheek, and you were making fair points - but ultimately a police force in the US was acting like that... which, to be honest, if one of the UK's police forces (our county forces are operationally which is why putting in a national police computer was such a nightmare) acted like dicks then I'd happily accept that "British police" was used.

You were probably reading a little too much into what I wrote, but I should really remember that tone doesn't come across too well in writing! 



Grand Moff Tim said:


> On the topic, though, any good links for summarizing the whole situation that aren't politicized in some way, and are generally unbiased? I don't hear too much over here in Korea unless I seek it out specifically, so it'd be cool to know where to look.



I don't really have any recommendations. As the police targeted the media as well they've not made many friends.



flint757 said:


> What I did find rather enlightening in this situation is that it seems politicians up on the hill finally agreed on something, that local police way overstepped on this one. Considering how much the police tend to get away with, since they tend to get the benefit of the doubt, I can understand why things escalated the way they did that's for sure. To those involved the whole thing felt like a big cover up no doubt.



Important paragraph.

It's also good to note that the demonstration last night was policed in a much lower key and it went off completely peacefully.

I'm wondering what will happen after this calms down. The local police might find themselves being sued by a lot of different people as there is a lot of photographic and video evidence of them overstepping.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 15, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> You realise the onion is a mock news site and so that link supports nothing.....



You realize I posted it knowing full well that it's a mock news site and had no intention of supporting anything, but thought it was a funny yet relevant look at one aspect of the situation....


I hope other Australians have a better sense of humor than you seem to.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 15, 2014)

hairychris said:


> My tongue was partially in cheek, and you were making fair points - but ultimately a police force in the US was acting like that... which, to be honest, if one of the UK's police forces (our county forces are operationally which is why putting in a national police computer was such a nightmare) acted like dicks then I'd happily accept that "British police" was used.
> 
> You were probably reading a little too much into what I wrote, but I should really remember that tone doesn't come across too well in writing!




Fair deuce .


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 15, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I hope other Australians have a better sense of humor than you seem to.



What you did... I see it.


----------



## narad (Aug 15, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Yeah, sorry about that, guys . I just have a weird pet peeve about people criticizing something about America in general when it has more to do with something that's much more specific, _especially_ when the person doing the criticizing isn't an American.



But the general trend of over-militarizing local police forces with gear whose intended use case is in overseas war zones - that is a trend in policy general enough to encompass "American Police".


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 15, 2014)

I thought it would be universally agreed upon that the use of force here is insane and overblown, but I've spoken about this with people that actually support local police forces receiving this type of military gear. That perspective just astounds me! The spectre of "terrorism" is so ingrained into the mind of the American people that they're fine with military grade equipment being deployed against American citizens.


Also, bullying the press when they're covering any story is something that shouldn't happen.

Ferguson Police Use Tear Gas On Al Jazeera America Team


----------



## asher (Aug 15, 2014)

I've read a number of good pieces on not just the overkill of hardware, but even the whole fatigues thing, and the kind of mindset it helps put those who wear it in. On top of what seems to be a systemic attitude of power and general racial biases... not to mention the incredible racial disparity in Ferguson and the area.


----------



## darren (Aug 15, 2014)

IT WASN'T ME!


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 15, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> You realize I posted it knowing full well that it's a mock news site and had no intention of supporting anything, but thought it was a funny yet relevant look at one aspect of the situation....
> 
> 
> I hope other Australians have a better sense of humor than you seem to.



Bit hard to gauge tone of a post when it is simply a link and nothing else, calm your titties!


----------



## Choop (Aug 15, 2014)

This is pretty relevant to the issue of local police having access to military grade equipment: U.S. Military Veterans Criticize Police Tactics In Ferguson

Also this was linked in a comment from that page: http://gawker.com/dont-call-the-police-militarized-the-military-is-bet-1621523647

Forgive me for linking io9. :X


----------



## flint757 (Aug 15, 2014)

> Is there any purpose for police to wear camo other than to look like soldiers? Not a lot of dense vegetation in Ferguson.



A tweet from that link

And:



> Looking at all these pictures the last few days, the camo has bothered me especially, not just because it has no practical purpose in an urban American setting, but because it should have no purpose at all among a civil police force.
> 
> The point of camo is to help a soldier to go undetected by the enemy, right? But the police should not want to go undetected. They should hope to be clearly visible as the face of order in their communities.
> 
> In this case, though, the point is to be visible&#8212;not as a force of order, but as a force of intimidation. And it only reinforces the notion of the police as the enemy of the community.



a comment.

This definitely wasn't an attempt to gain control of the crowd or to deescalate the situation, but quite the opposite. The weaponry used and the cute little outfits they chose to wear for hallowee...I mean to protect and serve, kind of prove otherwise. They had some cool toys they wanted to use and they had them so they did (thank you post-9/11 economics).

This is police work done about as wrong as it comes.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Aug 15, 2014)

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...on-u-s-police-dragged-light-horrors-ferguson/

A Glenn Greenwald article on the situation


----------



## Mik3D23 (Aug 15, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Stuff



I think a lot of the camo/military outfit wearing has to do with their need for self-validation. It is clear in the actions of the Ferguson PD that they seemed to view the people as enemies. What better way to substantiate that and prop themselves up further away from normal civilians than to wear military clothing?


----------



## zappatton2 (Aug 15, 2014)

this whole incident is really sad, and I agree with others who have noticed the general trend of what could be called militarization of local police forces. It's not quite the same thing in Canada, but even here, it really seems different. Entirely anecdotal, but when I was a kid in the late 70's/early 80's, police seemed entirely different, with the big hats, bright blue outfits, and helpful demeaner (again, I was a kid, no doubt my glasses are pretty rose coloured). But today, the police in my neighbourhood are decked out in bulletproof, black and grey outfits, and are exceedingly aggressive. I've had friends (even witnessed it) get cornered and goaded by loud, intimidating officers in the hopes of getting a reaction that could be actionable. And our police force has been in the news several times recently for playing fast and loose with citizens and their civil rights.

Not only this, but even mall security are starting to look like a tactical police unit. I noticed changes in both uniform and demeanor shortly after 9/11. If the purpose is to make people feel safer, I would argue that it is most certainly making people feel the opposite. I don't know if officers are more aggressive today, or if social media is simply exposing it more, but authority demands oversight and temperance. Power is an easy thing to abuse, moreso when given the tools and appearance of a military power, not of and for the community, but almost like an occupying force.


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 15, 2014)

I just wish for once the public wouldn't jump to aggressive reactions without having the whole story first. Let's me preface this by saying a man shouldn't have lost his life over a stupid decision to steal a $49 box of Swisher Sweets, robbery or not. What I'm getting at is we still don't have all the facts. Now they police are saying there was a first shot fired in the vehicle. Is there evidence of this? I dunno. Did Brown really scuffle with a cop in his car and try to grab a gun? I dunno. Was he really just walking down the street like his friend said? I dunno. From security footage it's clear the robber had an accomplice which has supposedly been identified as Johnson, so could he have lied in his witness account of what happened? Surely possible and he'd have cause, but we still don't know. None of us really do yet. But it's scary to think how easily people can resort to rioting, looting, destroying others property, without even having 10% of the whole story.


Rev.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 15, 2014)

With this story, many others, and the hostage who was killed by police bullets, there's clearly a problem where the police are not using their guns as only a last resort. Just too many situations where nobody was in danger and a person was killed. But on a broader level, you see a lot of people these days in the US resorting to gun violence, on a bigger and bigger scale. So what does it mean? I think the idea that "life is cheap" has somehow crept into a lot of people's minds. I don't know if that idea has come from seeing the various conflicts around the world, where the loss of lives of even children and women is justified without any regard for their personal innocence, or from mass media, or just from political/economic frustrations. Either way it's very upsetting to me that so many people out there are willing and ready to kill, and proud of that fact. George Zimmerman comes to mind as well.

Could it also be that there's no figures for peace? Who's supposed to inspire people to be humane... Russell Brand and Alex Jones? It's going to take a lot more than that to plant seeds of positivity in the collective mindset.


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 15, 2014)

Overtone said:


> I think the idea that "life is cheap" has somehow crept into a lot of people's minds. I don't know if that idea has come from seeing the various conflicts around the world, where the loss of lives of even children and women is justified without any regard for their personal innocence, or from mass media, or just from political/economic frustrations. Either way it's very upsetting to me that so many people out there are willing and ready to kill, and proud of that fact.



Oh so true. Sad, but true.


Rev.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 15, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> I just wish for once people wouldn't jump to reactions without having the whole story first. Let's me preface this by saying a man shouldn't have lost his life over a stupid decision to steal a $49 box of Swisher Sweets, robbery or not. What I'm getting at is we still don't have all the facts. Now they police are saying there was a first shot fired in the vehicle. Is there evidence of this? I dunno. Did Brown really scuffle with a cop in his car and try to grab a gun? I dunno. Was he really just walking down the street like his friend said? I dunno. From security footage it's clear the robber had an accomplice which has supposedly been identified as Johnson, so could he have lied in his witness account of what happened? Surely possible and he'd have cause, but we still don't know. None of us really do yet. But it's scary to think how easily people can resort to rioting, looting, destroying others property, without even having 10% of the whole story.
> 
> 
> Rev.



While very true, given the over-reaction after the fact and the verifiable ridiculousness that has been happening up to this point it doesn't make the local police department look any better either way; it in fact makes them look guiltier. I would also state that I sincerely doubt the police report is 100% truthful even if most of what they said was true. Even if the kid was a drug dealer, robber or whatever that doesn't mean they can skip due process and go straight to execution (has there been definitive evidence that he was involved in a crime or is it speculation?). Criminal or not, we have constitutional rights and the moment we let the justice system decide that without due process is the day things go to hell in this country. In a way it already has. All a police officer has to do is claim someone did something, force a dog to 'find' drugs, claim you assaulted them (proof or not), etc. and the 'good' citizens and judges will eat it up.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 15, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> calm your titties!



NEVER!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 15, 2014)

narad said:


> But the general trend of over-militarizing local police forces with gear whose intended use case is in overseas war zones - that is a trend in policy general enough to encompass "American Police".



Yeah, and I mentioned in my long-winded ramblomatic post back there on the first page that I think that that's a perfectly fair criticism to level at the US government in general, since it's not just a local thing. It shouldn't be happening. 

I still think there isn't a real concept of "American Police" that exists in such a way that would make talking about an organization as such make any sort of sense in general, but I do concede that the existence of whatever federal machinations are in place that allow non-federal officers access to that equipment does qualify as a larger-scale problem worthy of condemnation.

There's no denying that, really. I'm stubborn, but I'm not THAT stubborn . That'd be wandering into Eric Christian territory.


----------



## groverj3 (Aug 15, 2014)

I totally agree that police in the US, in general, are becoming too militarized. What can be done about this? No idea, I'm just a biologist... but how about stop giving them military-grade hardware, that would seem to be a logical place to start. 

Even more concerning to me is that I've heard people say things along the lines of "Well, he stole something so he got what was coming to him." WTF, what kind of society do they want to live in? You'd think I would've learned not to read the comments section on news websites by now. You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy...

Also agree with Tim about the danger of stereotyping and making generalizations, although I think he was being a tad overly sensitive. Many Americans, myself included, get a little annoyed at times by all the criticism leveled at the US in a very broad sense. Ignoring, of course, that things vary greatly state to state, and there are tons of people here that don't fit into the stereotypes. I try not to take things personally though since I'm not the flag-waving, patriotic, type and am not so ignorant as to think that there aren't many countries on Earth that are great places to live (and many with higher standards of living/are less backwards socially).


----------



## Randy (Aug 15, 2014)

I've been on the 'small town police are becoming too militarized' bandwagon for a while, but there are definitely caveats to that argument. 

The fact is, bulletproof vests, armor penetrating rounds, assault weapons, explosives,etc. are all weapons that are available to 'the bad guys'. It doesn't happen all that often, but there are definitely scenarios where big shit goes down, and the police having access to weapons to match force is a necessary evil.

HOWEVER, I absolutely agree that overarming police and sending them on the street for basic duty like they're going to war is creating a dangerous mindset and scenarios that unduly put the general public at risk.

I'd imagine there's a 'half way in between' type of solution.


----------



## asher (Aug 15, 2014)

ed: stupid comment


----------



## Mik3D23 (Aug 15, 2014)

Randy said:


> I've been on the 'small town police are becoming too militarized' bandwagon for a while, but there are definitely caveats to that argument.
> 
> The fact is, bulletproof vests, armor penetrating rounds, assault weapons, explosives,etc. are all weapons that are available to 'the bad guys'. It doesn't happen all that often, but there are definitely scenarios where big shit goes down, and the police having access to weapons to match force is a necessary evil.
> 
> ...



IF the idea is what you said; they might need these weapons/other things to combat potential highly armed threats, then there should be something in place that only allows these weapons to be used in those scenarios. 

On that note, rubber bullets, LRAD's, and tear gas don't seem to fit the bill of combating such scenarios.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 15, 2014)

I can't stand the term non-lethal weapon either. First of all, there is no such thing. Anything can be made in to a lethal weapon and anything, especially if used for suppression, can absolutely kill someone under the right circumstances or cause severe bodily harm. Second of all, things like the LRAD can cause permanent hearing damage and who knows what else. What of that? So it isn't designed to kill you and that makes it acceptable. Are civilian law enforcers even trained in the uses of devices like the LRAD or other potentially dangerous devices? I'm sure if used improperly they can cause permanent damage to the unfortunate recipient. There was talk of bring the ADS to resolve civilian conflicts as well (maybe already has been, I'm not aware). What are the long term health risks of these sorts of devices? Again if used improperly it too can cause severe bodily harm to the recipient. Rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, etc. I could go on and on. None of this should be legally allowed to be used on unarmed civilians ever.

Check out all of these wonderful devices the military, and likely local law enforcement thanks to 1033, get to use on unarmed civilians.

6 Creepy New Weapons the Police and Military Use To Subdue Unarmed People | Alternet

Incidents like these that happen all over the world and across my own country just boil my blood.


----------



## Varcolac (Aug 15, 2014)

Randy said:


> I've been on the 'small town police are becoming too militarized' bandwagon for a while, but there are definitely caveats to that argument.
> 
> The fact is, bulletproof vests, armor penetrating rounds, assault weapons, explosives,etc. are all weapons that are available to 'the bad guys'. It doesn't happen all that often, but there are definitely scenarios where big shit goes down, and the police having access to weapons to match force is a necessary evil.
> 
> ...



Unarmed but armoured police with specialist firearms squads for when shit is _really_ going to hit the fan. Still doesn't stop them shooting innocent people or kettling peaceful protesters, but they do get better hats.


----------



## Necris (Aug 16, 2014)




----------



## asher (Aug 16, 2014)

Can't see on phone, really hoping it's a clip from Hot Fuzz.


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 17, 2014)

Heavy handed response. They need a new chief and some brothers on the City Council.


----------



## F1Filter (Aug 18, 2014)

Well, this escalated quickly. 

Missouri National Guard headed to Ferguson - CNN.com


----------



## flexkill (Aug 18, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> I think police world wide should stand down for a week, see how much everyone hates on them then.... Might give people a bit of for thought on just how important they are, better yet, have a bunch of whinging whining civvies jump in and do their job for a while, see what it's really like for an officer of the law...



DUDE!? How did I know you would be in here White Knighting for the Police? I have over and over watched you defend every despicable action any police officer has ever done and then been posted on this forum. From murder, to cruelty to animals, and all around excessive force in general. 

You make me sick!

Wrong is wrong dude, Police or not. Don't give me your sorry ass excuse of "Police are under extreme stress" crap either. That is part of the damn job and they know this when they sign up. If they can't stop themselves from shooting people because they had a rough day, they shouldn't be ....ing Cops!


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 18, 2014)

Negative repped with "Will you ever shut the .... up?" Man up next time champ and at least leave a name rather than hide like a 4 year old girl....


----------



## flexkill (Aug 18, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> Negative repped with "Will you ever shut the .... up?" Man up next time champ and at least leave a name rather than hide like a 4 year old girl....


It was me champ! Now what? You going to leave me negative rep? I could care less, unlike you, I don't complain every time someone leaves me negative rep.


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 18, 2014)

No just thought I would point out that someone was being a bitch and neg repping people because of a difference in opinion. I wouldn't stoop to your level squirt. Hope it made you feel good about yourself....


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 18, 2014)

Guys, calm down. You're both turned up to 11 and the keyboard bickering isn't furthering the discussion.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

Re: Too militarized
IMO, no such thing. As long as criminals have access to fully auto weapons, grenades, etc, the LEOs have a right to protect the citizens

Re: LEO power abuse
A lot of people, especially internationally, are falling prey to media hype. For every bad LEO incident, there are THOUSANDS (or more lol) of legit arrests, bad guys getting put down/away, etc. I'm not a fan of a lot of officers, but I do have several friends that are honest LEOs that are always being shat upon by the public due to the media attention of their peers, even if several states away

Re: "Innocent Teenager"
He should not have lost his life based on the current evidence publicly released. The words "Force-In-Kind" here. Basically what Rev said. I will say this....if he DID try to grab the officer's gun at any point in time, dumb move and I support his being shot. We all saw his behavior on the video in the shop (if that's the dude). There are definitely actions not being conducted by an innocent anyone. Won't know until all the trial, etc is done and info released.

Re: Riot
Dumbasses, every one of them that are doing nothing but further exacerbating the situation. I fully support any and everyone one of the looters, rioters, etc being shot in defense of property. Every shop owner should have a way of defense. I would sleep in the store, close it for business, and the first person through the door/glass would get a rude awakening.
NOTE: This statement does not cover protesters. Protesters do not proactively steal, destroy, etc private property.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 18, 2014)

From what I understand the crime didn't start until the police escalated the situation. Doesn't make it okay, but it certainly paints the picture differently.

The police were the source of the problem twice in this. First, when shooting someone and not giving them their due process [if he was even guilty at all; town is notorious for racism apparently and we don't hold criminal trials against dead people that I'm aware of (as the perpetrator that is)]. Secondly, they escalated the situation in to complete chaos just so they could use their shiny new toys. That isn't to say that was their intention, but that is certainly what has happened. You don't calm a situation down by threatening people, bringing in the military and using more weapons. That's the perfect recipe for disaster really. Passive behavior wins the day in these situations almost always. Raising the stake only leads to everyone raising the stakes.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

If this account is true...the LEOs were assaulted first. This just came across my feeds...not sure how legit. *IF* legit, then IMO, the police were completely justified.

EXCLUSIVE: Friend of OFFICER DARREN WILSON Speaks Out on Shooting of Mike Brown (AUDIO) | The Gateway Pundit



transcript said:


> He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description. And, hes looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up.
> *And then Michael just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and them Darren grabs for his gun.* Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off.
> Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darrens first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, Freeze! Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him *And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed.* And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.​


----------



## Randy (Aug 18, 2014)

Well, considering a federal medical examination is incoming, it shouldn't be too difficult to reinforce or debunk this one fairly quickly.

FWIW, I think of this much like the revelation that Brown was involved with a robbery preceding this altercation... the actions of the people in control in Ferguson AFTER the shooting are more telling of how fvcked up things are than the actual shooting itself.


----------



## asher (Aug 18, 2014)

Private autopsy results published.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

That autopsy report states it *could* have been b/c of charging the officer (shot on top of the head). No tox-screen in that autopsy, so nothing to be revealed on possible drugs. The other dude with Brown can't keep his story straight on TV interviews and mess...which seems highly suspicious as well.


----------



## asher (Aug 18, 2014)

So does a statement from the friend of a cop with a record of racial profiling and abuse. And multiple reports the officer was not aware of the apparent theft when he pulled up.

Yes, it could have been charging him.

Why the hell are you jumping to possible drug use?


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

asher said:


> So does a statement from the friend of a cop with a record of racial profiling and abuse. And multiple reports the officer was not aware of the apparent theft when he pulled up.
> 
> Yes, it could have been charging him.
> 
> Why the hell are you jumping to possible drug use?



I agree...which is why I said I wasn't sure if legit. But, *IF* legit, do you honestly think a sober person would charge an officer that is drawn on them? Like all troubleshooting/investigations.....rule out everything so only the truth remains. A tox-screen should be part of the investigation. It's not me jumping to possible drug use, testing for it would rule out or support it. I only care about facts, not conjecture. Which is why I'm not putting much validity to anything shy of a video of the entire incident. Seems most of what's out there is after the fact and can be construed in multiple ways. I'm passing along things I come across...nothing more.

In other words...don't start getting hot-headed towards me based on your presumption that I'm taking the "he was on drugs" stance when I was merely pointing out that a drug/intoxicant panel hasn't been published yet.

EDIT: Then there's this video which has audio from on-site by someone (allegedly) NOT associated with the LEOs (not talking about the female radio caller since she's friends with the officer's wife/sig other)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mAaJMBxKA4

Video's closing remark sums my stance: Wait until we get all of the facts before drawing a conclusion


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 18, 2014)

Randy said:


> I've been on the 'small town police are becoming too militarized' bandwagon for a while, but there are definitely caveats to that argument.
> 
> The fact is, bulletproof vests, armor penetrating rounds, assault weapons, explosives,etc. are all weapons that are available to 'the bad guys'. It doesn't happen all that often, but there are definitely scenarios where big shit goes down, and the police having access to weapons to match force is a necessary evil.
> 
> ...



There is already a solution: We have a ridiculously sized military with a ridiculous budget - full of people who are actually trained to use all that stuff. If police are running into "bad guys" that are armed like soldiers, just call in some actual soldiers in response.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 18, 2014)

The official autopsy will determine what happened in any case. If the clothes have gun residue on them then he was exceptionally close to the police when shot making the police report more likely to be true. If not then they lied, simple as that.

Irrelevant to whether they were justified in shooting Brown, they handled the aftermath poorly. That is really undeniable.


----------



## vilk (Aug 18, 2014)

I feel like police should not be allowed to use deadly force on unarmed people. Even if the kid was trying to fight the police officer--hell, even if he was kicking the dude's ass--it's not justification for taking a life. A beating will hurt, sure, but you'll be ok. Shoot his leg, shoot his hands, shoot his shoulders. Don't shoot him through the head. Aiming a gun at someone's head and firing should be reserved for people who are armed with a deadly weapon. 

Just to reiterate--I'm not saying cops should not be allowed to use firearms when someone is attacking them. I'm am merely saying you shouldn't be allowed to point a gun at specifically *the head* of someone who isn't armed.


----------



## asher (Aug 18, 2014)

Tasers exist for a reason.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Irrelevant to whether they were justified in shooting Brown, they handled the aftermath poorly. That is really undeniable.


I agree. 

Although after reading the timeline over a few mins ago....the people really didn't give them much of a choice. They immediately went from candle light vigil to rioting/looting. That is an escalation point for many military and police force ROE (rules of engagement). You can't jump straight into that and expect normal awareness. It still could have possibly been handled differently...but without being in-zone, I couldn't really tell you nor could any media outlet.

EDIT: I totally agree that they could have tazed/sprayed/both him (non-lethal recourse) in this situation. We don't know if they're equipped with them, but in this day & age, I find it hard that they wouldn't have one.


----------



## asher (Aug 18, 2014)

ghostred7 said:


> I agree.
> 
> Although after reading the timeline over a few mins ago....the people really didn't give them much of a choice. They immediately went from candle light vigil to rioting/looting. That is an escalation point for many military and police force ROE (rules of engagement). You can't jump straight into that and expect normal awareness. It still could have possibly been handled differently...but without being in-zone, I couldn't really tell you nor could any media outlet.



Uh.

The vast majority of the protesters were peaceful, we had tear gas fired at TV crews, reporters assaulted and arrested and then released with no charges creating no paper trail, and the police showing up to face protests with vehicle mounted machine guns and camo fatigues strapped to the nines with guns.

There's stuff called riot gear. They went right past that.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

asher said:


> Uh.
> 
> The vast majority of the protesters were peaceful, we had tear gas fired at TV crews, reporters assaulted and arrested and then released with no charges creating no paper trail, and the police showing up to face protests with vehicle mounted machine guns and camo fatigues strapped to the nines with guns.
> 
> There's stuff called riot gear. They went right past that.


Key word here: majority
The minority of non-peaceful escalated directly to molotov cocktails at a QT (Quik Trip). That's use of a deadly weapon on public property inside of city limits (not to mention.... firebombs at a gas station). It's these asshats that screwed it up for the city. I've read 3 different sites' timelines and all of them say the same thing for the first few days:

Aug 9 - shooting

Aug 10 - vigils, demand to know why/officer's name, peaceful protests turn violent (insert QT footage/pics here)

Aug 11 - tactical officers/SWAT show up, protesters shut down, S. Florissant St (illegal gathering...gotta obtain permit to protest/rally legally in most of the country), protesters arrested for not dispersing

Aug 12 - pics of police drawn on unarmed protesters (no verification based on picture, just not visible. you won't see mine unless i'm defending myself or at range), Al Sharpton arrives (barf), more protesters, more tear gas for not dispersing, etc

Aug 13 - Al Jazeera (sp?) media gassed, Washington Post reporters detained (for not clearing a McD as requested by the on-ground authority),

....and so on.

It absolutely seems that it could be handled differently, especially from our chairs....but I promise you, that unless you're on the ground "in the shit," can't really say. This goes for any of us. I've physically been in a situation like this before (msg me for details if you really want them). I'm bringing that experience to this closing statement.


----------



## asher (Aug 18, 2014)

Have you read the reporters' accounts of the Mccy-Ds incident?

ed: yes, apologies, I'm getting a little testy. I was following live Twitter updates from a whole bunch of places as it went down though, and jesus christ was this ever horribly, horribly mishandled. But the whole thing just _reeks_.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

asher said:


> Have you read the reporters' accounts of the Mccy-Ds incident?


I watched their footage. Washington Post was one of the sources I was using for the timeline.

The reporter/camera guy wasn't moving jack when being told to. This reminds me of those videos where people seek out officers solely to get them on camera. In addition, they tried interviewing the officer clearing the place out. The officer remained professional and the reporter/camera person was being a wanker. If LEOs are ordering a building cleared, non-compliance and/or interfering will get one detained.



asher said:


> Have you read the reporters' accounts of the Mccy-Ds incident?
> 
> ed: yes, apologies, I'm getting a little testy. I was following live Twitter updates from a whole bunch of places as it went down though, and jesus christ was this ever horribly, horribly mishandled. But the whole thing just _reeks_.



Yes it does and I agree - but maintain that it's the leadership involved and not the LEOs (most of them...shouting obscenities is a no-no for them to do) on the ground that's mishandling everything.


----------



## Randy (Aug 18, 2014)

ghostred7 said:


> It still could have possibly been handled differently...



This doesn't just apply to the 'boots on the ground', crowd control stuff. 

The head of the Missouri state police, as well as the Governor himself both disagreed with the release of the Brown surveillance video to distract from the release of the name of the officer involved. That's one of several examples.

You can say "well, they might have been right" about the shooting (your method of debate, while saying you'll wait for facts, still heavily leans in favor of the police in this case BTW; it kind of belies your objectivity but that's besides the point), you can say "they might have been right" about the response to the protesters/rioters because that's all speculation, but the PR handling of this has been famously, undeniably bad.

I'm not necessarily going this far, but I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that if the same people who made those awful 'keystone cops' PR decisions are the same people making the decisions with regard to the handling of the law, there may be some justified, rational skepticism.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 18, 2014)

No doubt. Even with my objectivity being leaned more towards the LEOs with the facts that I have, there were/are still decisions being made that blow. These officers should be required to scenario-train more frequently, do ROE training more frequently, etc. More training = better responses. Maybe their psych evals should be conducted more frequently. There are a lot of things at work above the ground folks. My heart will always be with those in the shit and not the leadership putting them there, be it military or LE.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 18, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> ... hide like a 4 year old girl....



Actually, we've got enough petty 3-year-olds that the unofficial official policy is to not sign neg rep because of the number of rep wars in the past.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Aug 18, 2014)

flexkill said:


> ... I could care less ...



Äw, thät mëäñs yöü dö cäre, ät lëäst ä littlë.

EDIT: Seems the reference is lost to many (jump to 1:06 for the TLDW crowd):


----------



## asher (Aug 19, 2014)

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...reporter-detained-covering-ferguson-protests/


----------



## Explorer (Aug 20, 2014)

It will be interesting to see if the reports regarding Michael Brown having struck the officer and fractured his eye socket just prior to being shot are true. There's are also reports that the various witness statements about the shooting contradict each other. 

Which might not put those who are going on in on this on very solid ground, including the Gazans from the original post. 

Also, if the shooting resulted from an officer dealing with being attacked to such an extent as alleged, that will certainly cast some doubt on the police having had bad judgment in the fact of physical assault. 

The reports haven't yet been on the major news sources, so I'm not saying that they've been well vetted or that they are reliable yet. If not, it would truly be horrible if a cop just drew on and shot someone for no reason on the street. 

In terms of likeliness, though, you have to wonder about the two narratives:

A 6-year-veteran police officer with a clean disciplinary record snaps and guns down an innocent pedestrian on the street for no reason.

After being recorded on video robbing a store, and then walking in the middle of road to the point where an officer stopped him, someone assauted a 6-year-veteran police officer with a clean disciplinary record, beating him and fracturing the officer's eye socket, and was shot. 

Some are banking on the "just snapped for no reason" theory. I'm interested in seeing how the evidence supports or disproves it from here out.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 20, 2014)

Apparently somewhere out there someone reported than everything we know about the case; the video of Brown robbing the store, the report by the officer of the attack, the fact the officer was injured, and all the rioting and looting is all not real and the media is exaggerating. I just got done arguing on another forum about it. Sad thing is I consider those people friends but they are exhibiting classic confirmation bias and are completely ignorant to the whole situation by choice. I can't handle it so I left. 

As for my opinion, I'm banking on the Brown is a criminal and assaulted the cop theory. Much more likely. Its just a shame in those sorts of neighborhoods people will deliberately ignore facts as a community if it helps their cause.

Oh yeah, and I think the police action thus far is justified. Remember LA burning to the ground after Rodney King? They were trying to avoid that. Too bad it backfired when they just rioted more. Just my opinion.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 20, 2014)

Devil's advocate: Is it that much harder to draw a taser than it is to draw a pistol? Force would be justified in the case that the officer was attacked by Brown, but _deadly_ force?


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 20, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Devil's advocate: Is it that much harder to draw a taser than it is to draw a pistol? Force would be justified in the case that the officer was attacked by Brown, but _deadly_ force?



Apparently at the exact moment Brown was shot he was about 30 feet away from the officer. The effective range of the average law enforcement taser is about 15-20 feet, and that's pushing accuracy and penetration power. Factor in that Brown was 6'4" and near 300lbs and the officer had gotten the crap beat out of him already, I'd say the officer's life was in danger and the shooting was justified.

Plus, there are instances where tasers don't take down guys that big.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 20, 2014)

> Oh yeah, and I think the police action thus far is justified. Remember LA burning to the ground after Rodney King? They were trying to avoid that. Too bad it backfired when they just rioted more. Just my opinion.


Of course it backfired what do you think is going to happen when you use tear gas and arm your self with military grade weapons? It was made worse when the local cops treated the peaceful protesters as looters and even more so when they released the footage of Brown "robbing" which many people saw as an attempted smear. (It was later revealed that Darren Wilson didn't know about the "robbery" when his altercation with Brown happened) And I added quotations to robbery because there's been footage released of Brown paying for or at least attempting to pay for the cigars, but that's irrelevant any way for what I mentioned above. It seems the Ferguson P.D. learned nothing from the 90's LA riots.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 20, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Of course it backfired what do you think is going to happen when you use tear gas and arm your self with military grade weapons? It was made worse when the local cops treated the peaceful protesters as looters and even more so when they released the footage of Brown in an attempted smear. (Darren Wilson didn't know about the "robbery" when his altercation with Brown happened) And I added quotations to robbery because there's been footage released of Brown paying for or at least attempting to pay for the cigars. It seems the Ferguson P.D. learned nothing from the 90's LA riots.



It's just my opinion/theory. If police showed up at your door with an armored car and sniper rifles, you'd more than likely do what they say, as would I. They wanted to make a big presence right away to avoid a whole big mess. The protesters thought differently, I guess. Also, the looters were hiding amongst the protestors and media.

I haven't seen this video of Brown paying. Link?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 20, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> It's just my opinion/theory. If police showed up at your door with an armored car and sniper rifles, you'd more than likely do what they say, as would I.


That analogy doesn't work as a good parallel to what's going on in Ferguson, seeing as how there was no reason for them to show up dressed like they where going to war.....with a group of protesters. 





> They wanted to make a big presence right away to avoid a whole big mess.


Which is exactly the wrong course of action to take, when the state police took over and welcomed the protesters in a more supportive and much less hostile demeanor things calmed down....until the local PD released the "robbery" footage.



> Also, the looters were hiding amongst the protestors and media.


This is true, but in order for looters to be looters wouldn't they eventually have to break off from the protesters and media journalists to actually loot things?




> I haven't seen this video of Brown paying. Link?


----------



## asher (Aug 20, 2014)

About that "clean record" thing:



> Schottel got another unpleasant surprise when he sought the use-of-force history of the officers involved. He learned that before a new chief took over in 2010 the department had a surprising protocol for non-fatal use-of-force reports.
> 
> &#8220;The officer himself could complete it and give it to the supervisor for his approval,&#8221; the prior chief, Thomas Moonier, testified in a deposition. &#8220;I would read it. It would be placed in my out basket, and my secretary would probably take it and put it with the case file.&#8221;
> 
> No copy was made for the officer&#8217;s personnel file.



From The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - The Daily Beast which is about Ferguson cops beating the shit out of a black guy they picked up who shared the same last name but different SS number and middle name of who their warrant was for, beat the shit out of him in the cell, charged him with getting blood on their uniforms (property damage) and then completely contradicting themselves when it came up in court.

Color me a little skeptical.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 20, 2014)

*facepalm* That's literally that strong arm robbery footage, but the bit where he shoved the store owner was cut out. Confirmation bias to the max. He wasn't paying, he was reaching over the counter to steal cigars.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 20, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> Apparently at the exact moment Brown was shot he was about 30 feet away from the officer. The effective range of the average law enforcement taser is about 15-20 feet, and that's pushing accuracy and penetration power. Factor in that Brown was 6'4" and near 300lbs and the officer had gotten the crap beat out of him already, I'd say the officer's life was in danger and the shooting was justified.
> 
> Plus, there are instances where tasers don't take down guys that big.



If he was 30 feet away, then he wasn't a threat. If he started closing the distance to become a threat, then he could be tasered once in taser range. If he was big enough that that didn't stop him, then bust out the the big guns. Seriously, shouldn't deadly force be the _last _resort whenever possible?

I'm just being an armchair police officer here, obviously. I have no idea how I'd react in a similar situation. Just trying to see this from all sides.


----------



## asher (Aug 20, 2014)

30', because he was running, because the officer was shooting at him.

I don't know why the taser would have been harder to reach for than his gun.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 20, 2014)

That video was inadvertently shortened, I'm assuming. 

This one is much better.



It's unfortunate that the first video had almost an entire third of the footage cut out of it. It's almost like it was intentional... but wouldn't that be lying to support one's case, and easily disproven by seeing the whole thing? 

It would be awful for someone to deliberately manipulate the public in that way, so I'll assume that they made an honest mistake, and look forward to them apologizing for riling things up. 

Hmm. That footage does show a complete lack of hesitation on the part of Michael Brown to reach out and strong arm another person, doesn't it? It makes me even more curious as to how reliable initial reports are that Brown was willing to assault a police officer, and break part of his skull. 

If someone has actually assaulted a store employee/owner while robbing them, and then a police officer started talking to them, the next question would be, how likely would a robber be to suspect the officer knew about the strong arm robbery? And if they did suspect that, how likely would they be to throw that cop a beating to not be arrested for the robbery? 

I don't think my reasoning is too far from likelihood, but I'd love to hear what other chains of events they view as just as likely to fit the events as we currently know them, and taking the histories of those involved into account.


----------



## asher (Aug 20, 2014)

So clearly he deserved to be shot dead by an officer not aware of the store incident?


----------



## Explorer (Aug 21, 2014)

asher said:


> So clearly he deserved to be shot dead by an officer not aware of the store incident?



Here's what I'm asking:

If Michael Brown was assaulting a police officer because he thought he was caught for the robbery, and if Brown even went so far as to break the officer's eye socket, leaving the officer dazed and in fear for his life... would you think the officer was justified in defending himself? 

I'm also asking, what chain of events do you see as likely, taking the histories of both parties into account?

Notice that actually assaulting a police officer to the extent which initial reports have stated doesn't require the robbery to be a factor in the officer defending himself from what he would consider to be lethal threat. It only requires that Michael Brown beat someone to where they thought Brown was capable of killing them.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 21, 2014)

asher said:


> 30', because he was running, because the officer was shooting at him.
> 
> I don't know why the taser would have been harder to reach for than his gun.



No, 30' because he walked away after beating up the cop. The cop aimed his weapon at Brown, told him to freeze and that he was under arrest for assaulting a police officer, then Brown ran at him again, which would be indicated by the all the bullets being in the front of Brown's body, which they were according to the autopsy. We aren't even sure if the officer had a taser either. 



asher said:


> So clearly he deserved to be shot dead by an officer not aware of the store incident?



I'm not saying he deserved to be shot dead at all, but if you beat the crap out of a police officer, walk away, then come at him again, you better be prepared to be shot at. 

I live in the NYC area and see all too many times cops who are permanently injured or killed in the line of duty dealing with dangerous criminals because they weren't fast enough on the draw.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 21, 2014)

I haven't been keeping up the last couple of days, been rather busy, but if the police officer was supposedly beaten to the point that he cracked the dudes skull then why was an autopsy necessary at all to decide whether the officer was justified? Evidence would be pretty obvious since the police officer would still have the same damage to his body a couple of days later. The first story I heard was that he was in his car and Brown reached for his gun and then he shot him. The story keeps changing on both sides it seems (at least in the news releases).

Given the attention to this case the truth will definitely come out on that front, of that I am certain. Either way, the police are handling the situation in the wake of this incident poorly. The protest being started under misleading circumstances doesn't really change that. They are treating all the protesters as if they are all looters essentially, even the press. Couple that with the absolutely ridiculous gear they brought out and that police department is still full of dumb asses. 

If the officer didn't have a taser in his car or on his person he should have. If he did and didn't even try to use it he plays a part in all this whether he was justified or not. Police are supposed to be well trained in high risk situations aren't they? If they aren't or it is sub-par training then that sounds like an area that could need an overhaul in the near future.


----------



## Necris (Aug 21, 2014)

asher said:


> So clearly he deserved to be shot dead by an officer not aware of the store incident?



Of course no-one deserves to be shot to death over a few stolen cigars, which is why getting a clear picture of the events that occurred between the moment the officer first made contact with Brown and his friend and the moment Brown was killed is important. Whether he stole cigars or bought them is completely irrelevant if after an officer attempted to stop him he rushed and assaulted said officer.

Chief: Officer noticed Brown carrying suspected stolen cigars 

According to this article the Officer initially unsure but suspected Brown was connected to the robbery having seen him with the cigars and was able to confirm that Brown was the suspect in the robbery. Granted, the original story given (by the Police Chief) was that he stopped them because they "were in the middle of the street blocking traffic." So the veracity of this new story is uncertain.






flint757 said:


> I haven't been keeping up the last couple of days, been rather busy, but if the police officer was supposedly beaten to the point that he cracked the dudes skull then why was an autopsy necessary at all to decide whether the officer was justified? Evidence would be pretty obvious since the police officer would still have the same damage to his body a couple of days later.



Suspicion that the officer had just went and killed a black teenager for no reason, the accompanying outrage and details filtering out as slowly as they tend to in cases like this probably lead to the demand for an autopsy.

Caller: Officer's side of Ferguson shooting - CNN.com

The story from police according to this is:


> Officer Darren Wilson rolled down his window to tell Brown and a friend to stop walking in the street. When Wilson tried to get out of his cruiser, Brown first tried to push the officer back into the car, then punched him in the face and grabbed for his gun before breaking free after the gun went off once, the caller said.
> Wilson pursued Brown and his friend, ordering them to freeze, according to the account. When they turned around, Brown began taunting Wilson, saying he would not arrest them, then ran at the officer at full speed, the caller said.
> Wilson then began shooting. The final shot was to Brown's forehead, and the teenager fell two or three feet in front of Wilson, said the caller, who identified herself as the officer's friend.
> A source with detailed knowledge of the investigation later told CNN the caller's account is "accurate," in that it matches what Wilson has told investigators.
> ...


Why haven't we seen the officer, even a video of him taken in an undisclosed location for his protection that can verify his injuries? I don't know. However, if something like a video showing his injuries were given to the media it would certainly be the first time I've ever seen something like that happen. 

I don't really think it would help public opinion anyway, if anything we'd probably have people screaming "it's make up, they're trying to cover up a murder!" or something similar.


----------



## Murmel (Aug 21, 2014)

asher said:


> I don't know why the taser would have been harder to reach for than his gun.



I get this feeling that during training they practice reaching out for the pistol most of the time, not the taser (because not everyone's got one).



TheStig1214 said:


> We aren't even sure if the officer had a taser either.



You might as well equip every cop with a taser if you're going to give them all guns. My personal opinion of course.
But what do I know, if everyone's got a taser then perhaps they'll whip it out in less violent situations and we get headlines reporting taser abuse.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 21, 2014)

Necris said:


> I don't really think it would help public opinion anyway, if anything we'd probably have people screaming "it's make up, they're trying to cover up a murder!" or something similar.



I have to unfortunately agree here. I've been saying from the beginning that the people in these protests from these sorts of neighborhoods like to remain collectively ignorant about the facts of a situation if it helps their cause. Hence the fact they are all still saying "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" despite that it's been proven Brown never had his hands up, all the shots to his arm were in the front.

Also, beside the point here, even if "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was accurate, what a fvcking stupid rally chant that is.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 21, 2014)

The most worrying part about this whole situation is the ability of the media to divert so much attention to an issue and create a race issue that wasn't there that people bite into hook like and sinker; Mike Brown wasn't shot because he was black, he was shot because he was assaulting an on duty law enforcement officer. The reports and autopsies show that Mike Brown's wounds were not defensive in nature and could not have occurred if Brown had his hands up like the original narrative described. Still, we have people who have bought the narrative so hard that they're justifying taking and destroying other's property and assaulting others as a rational display of their anger? And then wonder why police respond in such a way they do?


----------



## flint757 (Aug 21, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> I have to unfortunately agree here. I've been saying from the beginning that the people in these protests from these sorts of neighborhoods like to remain collectively ignorant about the facts of a situation if it helps their cause. Hence the fact they are all still saying "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" despite that it's been proven Brown never had his hands up, all the shots to his arm were in the front.
> 
> Also, beside the point here, even if "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was accurate, what a fvcking stupid rally chant that is.



I'd say it has more to do with a need for a martyr more than anything. There are problems in Ferguson that go way beyond this event and I think this just afforded a good rally cry and opportunity to make something of it. I sincerely doubt if everything were perfect in Ferguson the town would be in such an uproar over a single death, especially if that death were in fact justified (witnesses would know the actual truth whether they chose to share it or not).

Most people are ignorant of the law and their rights though, so who really knows. You had people going to the courthouses in different states for the Zimmerman case even though it'd make literally zero difference as that is way out of jurisdiction for a case in Florida. People want to do something about it so they do. Since they can't travel, likely because they are too poor, they do something at home either because they feel they need to do something or because they just don't actually know what the law and their rights are or maybe both. 

Neighborhoods in perpetual poverty have a tendency to distrust authority figures so I doubt any evidence would suffice either way. In their minds it is a cover up and no doubt the local police have probably helped, at some point, perpetuate that mindset within the community.


----------



## asher (Aug 21, 2014)

You know, like some of the crap that's already been linked earlier in the thread...


----------



## Explorer (Aug 21, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> I have to unfortunately agree here. I've been saying from the beginning that the people in these protests from these sorts of neighborhoods like to remain collectively ignorant about the facts of a situation if it helps their cause. Hence the fact they are all still saying "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" despite that it's been proven Brown never had his hands up, all the shots to his arm were in the front.



Something which struck me as very odd was how the observable behavior of Michael Brown on the video of the robbery was characterized as "denigrating" Michael Brown and "attacking his character." How is video of his behavior capable of "character assassination," if the observable behavior demonstrates the character in question? 

It is definitely a weird verbal game. I would be more accurate to say, the video denigrates their image of Michael Brown, and is an attack upon and assassination of that false characterization, compared to the real life actions of the person in question.

I suspect this whole process will continue to drill down upon this idea of character, for both Brown and the cop. 

I hadn't heard about the ballistics, or about the strikes to Brown's arms being to the front as opposed to the undersides. Is it true that the raised arms are not an accurate representation of what happened?


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 21, 2014)

According to the autopsy report:



> Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 21, 2014)

BTW, a good summary of what is known and not known publicly at this point.

Here is everything police and witnesses said happened when Michael Brown was killed - Washington Post

I think it will be interesting to see how the timing on the police dispatch tape, which should contain the alleged announcement of the robbery committed by Brown and documented on tape, fits with the timing of the shooting. It would be good to know if such an announcement did go out, and if it came over the police radio around the time of the physical altercation through the police vehicle window and then in the street.

----

I'm thinking, if there is going to be a trial regarding the shooting, and if I were the defense attorney, I'd hold back the medical records for the officer until the defense portion of the trial. I'd let the prosecutors talk about the actions, and let the family talk about how their child was innocently walking down the street. Then, if they exist, I'd let the medical records of the assault be the defense, showing that the officer was up against someone who had previously assaulted a store owner (that tape will likely be admissable), and that he was in fear for his life after getting beaten to the point of being dazed. 

Anyway, I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be watching how this develops, and what evidence emerges over time.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 22, 2014)

Sorry folks. I try not to post a bunch of things one after another, but I've been doing even more reading, and I find it amazing how the witness statement from the guy who was with Michael Brown has now been shown to be false in a major regard. 

Witness to Michael Brown shooting comes forward



> According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot. which struck Brown in the back.


Not the only source of that narrative, either.

Witnesses Tiffany Mitchell, Piaget Crenshaw detail Michael Brown shooting, journalists detained - The Global Dispatch



> &#8220;I saw the police chase him &#8230; down the street and shoot him down,&#8221; Crenshaw said. Brown ran about 20 feet. Michael jerks his body, as if he&#8217;s been hit,&#8221; Mitchell said. Then he faced the officer and put his hands in the air, but the officer kept firing, both women said. He dropped to the pavement.


And the third witness.

CNN Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

I also find it interesting that Dorian Johnson's attorney has now stated that Johnson was part of the convenience store robbery. I wasn't aware of that aspect of it. 

Police: Michael Brown stopped because he blocked traffic | MSNBC

Part of that story also states that the report of the robbery had already gone out to police. 

Did the officer see the cigars after telling the pair to get out of the street? That to me is an interesting question. 

One more thing... does it seem to anyone else that when there is actual empirical forensic evidence as to what happened, it tends to support the police version as opposed to folks like Johnson? 

(And kudos to a friend of mine who played me a video of Dorian Johnson and his attorney. That made me ask... "Why does he have an attorney?" and led to me watching and reading a whole lot more. I initially missed that Johnson had been part of the robbery, and might not be an entirely impartial witness.)


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 22, 2014)

Necris said:


>




Found this relevant to the situation as well:


----------



## DocBach (Aug 22, 2014)

Anybody watched the video of the second police shooting in Ferguson? I can understand tensions being high, but the use of force in that fatal shooting looked very disproportionate. The suspect could have easily been subdued with an ASP baton or non-lethal means -- I would be much more outraged by that shooting than the shooting of Michael Brown.


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Anybody watched the video of the second police shooting in Ferguson? I can understand tensions being high, but the use of force in that fatal shooting looked very disproportionate. The suspect could have easily been subdued with an ASP baton or non-lethal means -- I would be much more outraged by that shooting than the shooting of Michael Brown.



Well, considering that all we had to go on with regard to the second shooting was eye witness/police reports, and that shooting became a 'non story' up until the video came out and we could actually SEE what happened... it wouldn't be totally off track to assume that if a video of the Brown shooting existed, there's a remote possibility it could be equally distant from the official reports.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 22, 2014)

Randy said:


> Well, considering that all we had to go on with regard to the second shooting was eye witness/police reports, and that shooting became a 'non story' up until the video came out and we could actually SEE what happened... it wouldn't be totally off track to assume that if a video of the Brown shooting existed, there's a remote possibility it could be equally distant from the official reports.



But from what we could see, the cops were called, got out of their cars guns drawn and shot the dude after a single warning. This was for a call of a guy who took two cans of soda outside of a store. In the mike brown case were finding out that the officer involved had his face broke and autopsies disproving the witness (who was a suspect in a crime). It seems to me that the brown case should be the non story and the cops gunning down a guy without a weapon without attempting any other use of force would be one to highlight and rally against.


----------



## Randy (Aug 22, 2014)

Where I'm at, I don't take much of anybody at their word... I agree with you that if you follow the NARRATIVES, then Brown almost sounds like a non-story but this second shooting was a non-story for the first two days because of an equally shaky narrative (supposedly "erratic, overhand grip on the knife and charging the police at close range" according to the original reports).

I'm just saying, in general, I don't trust anybody's word and if you don't have indisputable video evidence, then the next best alternative is a thorough forensic investigation because witness testimony (both the police, and others) is near useless.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Aug 22, 2014)

The video of the second shooting appeared to be completely justifiable to me. I don't like use of deadly force but most of the criticism of the incident seems to be very ignorant of self-defense laws and training.

The man was very close and advancing on one of the officers with a knife. Many people ask why they could not have tazed him, and the answer is that he could have closed the gap before they could draw and aim. Tueller Drill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
21 feet is taught as the kill zone for edged weapons, where you won't be able to draw in time. The officers had their guns out already, as they should have for a call about an armed suspect, so that was their only means of stopping him.

Second, I've seen many comments on other sites about "why couldn't they shoot him in the arm/leg?" Because that isn't legal.

The video is on youtube, I'd link it but I don't know if that's cool.


----------



## Necris (Aug 22, 2014)

^ I've brought up the Teuller Drill in the past but still people believe that a knife is no threat in the presence of multiple officers with firearms, regardless of distance. So, prepare yourself.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 22, 2014)

I was unaware of a weapon being involved in the call; it looked to me that the officers drew their weapons before exiting their vehicle, which could have been an indication that they had information or reason to believe the suspect was armed.

Still, it looked like the situation might have been as equally contained by two officers and a liberal application of hickory shampoo.

The video did illustrate well however SOP of shooting until the target is subdued. People are frequently outraged at the number of rounds fired without realizing training dictates that an officer shoot as much as it takes to completely stop a threat.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 22, 2014)

What the hell was he thinking?!

"I'm going to commit a theft, brandish a weapon, and then charge them with a lethal weapon to provoke a hail of gunfire, showing that the police will kill an armed man who is charging at them."

Even the dude with the camera could have told you this was a really bad idea. 

Stranger still to me... with the thought that he was somehow intentionally going to cause problems for the police, the guy armed with the knife decided to harm a third party by the theft. Why not just have the knife? Did he have a grudge against the party who had the sodas, or did he just not give a chit about them being harmed?

----

DocBach, are you arguing that the police should have used batons when faced with a lethal threat, even when batons would require those officers to get within easy reach of that lethal threat? If so, I don't think anyone is going to change regulations on that.

I understand that law enforcement makes that job choice which put them at risk, but I can't imagine those who decide on those procedures arguing that an officer should risk his or her life to protect the person who is actively threatening that life.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 22, 2014)

After reading the reports it seems that the dude shot was wielding a knife. 

...Its a bad idea to approach cops with weapons drawn brandishing a weapon shouting "Shoot me!"


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 22, 2014)

DocBach said:


> After reading the reports it seems that the dude shot was wielding a knife.
> 
> ...Its a bad idea to approach cops with weapons drawn brandishing a weapon shouting "Shoot me!"



Depends what report you read. If you read the actual police report, he did have a knife.

If you read some newspapers he _allegedly_ had a knife. 

Lol news bias.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 23, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> Depends what report you read. If you read the actual police report, he did have a knife.
> 
> If you read some newspapers he _allegedly_ had a knife.
> 
> Lol news bias.



I just watched the video. Even IF he had a machete in his hands, it would have been possible to shoot him once. Or maybe twice. It looked like he was still in a rather safe distance when the shooting started. AND it looks like they were handcuffing him AFTER they shot him down. Seriously, you're handcuffing a dead or dying person? It doesn't matter what happened before, that is just nowhere near acceptable.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 23, 2014)

Police are trained to shoot until the subject _stops -- _either because he is incapacitated by the rounds or killed. The next step is to secure the threat, which would include searching and disarming, followed by restraint. Only after the scene is considered secure are medical considerations taken.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 23, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Police are trained to shoot until the subject _stops -- _either because he is incapacitated by the rounds or killed. The next step is to secure the threat, which would include searching and disarming, followed by restraint. Only after the scene is considered secure are medical considerations taken.



Seriously? I didn't know that. Guess that's one more point where there's a huge difference between our countries. A German police man would be hard pressed to explain the second shot to the court, the other eight? No way. He didn't give him a chance to stop after one shot or two, he just pulled the trigger until the man fell. What happened after the shots? Again, no way he would get away, probably at least suspended for life and convicted for failure to render assistance. After all, human dignity does apply to suspects as well, and a man who just took ten bullets, some of them to the head, does not pose a threat to anyone (with the exception maybe of suicide terrorists).
I don't mean to judge anyone, but that is a completly different mindset, and I'm glad to life in a more peaceful country. Even more so if this kind of behaviour is actually necessary for the police to survive in some situations (in this, I think it wasn't at all).


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 23, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Police are trained to shoot until the subject _stops -- _either because he is incapacitated by the rounds or killed. The next step is to secure the threat, which would include searching and disarming, followed by restraint. Only after the scene is considered secure are medical considerations taken.


 
Do you have a link that can prove this?


----------



## DocBach (Aug 23, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/nyregion/18cuffs.html?_r=0

heres a quick google search, but think of it this way -- you just used deadly force against someone because you thought your life was at risk.... why would you leave them unrestrained before searching them and providing medical aid?


----------



## Electric Wizard (Aug 23, 2014)

SD83 said:


> Seriously? I didn't know that. Guess that's one more point where there's a huge difference between our countries. A German police man would be hard pressed to explain the second shot to the court, the other eight? No way. He didn't give him a chance to stop after one shot or two, he just pulled the trigger until the man fell.


There's rationale behind the continued fire versus stopping and waiting to see what happens. This comes down to the time it takes humans to process things, not that American police are all bloodthirsty while Europeans are peaceful.



> "Twenty years ago officers were trained to 'shoot then assess.' They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn't been incapacitated.
> 
> "Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once-shoot and assess-a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.
> 
> ...


From Shooting to wound - Police Firearms Officers Association


I'm not meaning to come off as some kind of statist, it's just that people everywhere are piling on this event as a sign of abusive police when everything they did is reasonably justified. Meanwhile there was that kid that got burned by a flashbang, or that homeless man shot in California, or children getting tazed, that don't seem to attract nearly as much outcry. I don't like that they shot Powell either, in absolute terms, but it seems like lots of people refuse to even consider approaching things objectively.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 23, 2014)

Dog Boy said:


> Do you have a link that can prove this?


Having been military and shared range time and conversation with local officers...there are parallels in the training: Don't draw unless you're willing to kill whatever is in front of the barrel, aim center mass, shoot to kill, etc. Non-lethal munitions are for incapacitating, firearms are not. 

As for the second shooting...if dude had a knife, non-lethal munitions are off of the table. If he was wielding a knife and advancing on ANYONE, the officers are justified in shooting him as are most private citizens legally licensed. 

As someone stated earlier...a normal human, with normal stride can close 21 feet/~7m in 3secs or less. I've timed it for fun with an "intention" pace and was able to close that distance in about 2.1secs. Let us not forget...trained or not, one can throw a knife and do major damage. Granted, untrained there is a lot of error room, but a risk one facing that situation wouldn't take. 

Again - not sure if dude had a knife - presuming that he did based on what's being floated around...I feel that the LEOs in this latest scenario executed their ROE by the book. If he was unarmed then that's a different story all together. Unlike Brown, this guy hadn't assaulted an officer or anything at the time of this video.

Good exercise: get a friend, stand 21' away, stuff a fake gun/stick/whatever at the 4-5 o'clock position (7-8 if left handed). tell them to go, see how close they can get before you level that upwards to shoot at them. keep in mind in scenario 2 there is also another weapon to put away to draw a tazer/gas/etc and also that starting from a stand-still adds a little time as most assailants are already in motion when they decide to close on a victim


----------



## CrazyDean (Aug 25, 2014)

Found this interesting: Obama sends White House aides to Ferguson funeral


----------



## vilk (Aug 26, 2014)

Electric Wizard said:


> Second, I've seen many comments on other sites about "why couldn't they shoot him in the arm/leg?" Because that isn't legal.



wtf why


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 26, 2014)

vilk said:


> wtf why


This.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Aug 26, 2014)

^Because the act of firing a gun is the use of lethal force. Justifiable use of lethal force requires fearing for one's life, which will be questioned if the shooter takes the time to intentionally make a wounding shot. Much like how firing a warning shot can result in charges, it suggests that all options were not exhausted before lethal force was used.

Intentional maiming (mayhem) is a felony and could even be bumped up to attempted murder.


----------



## asher (Aug 26, 2014)

Was about to post that and SSO hiccup ate it.

A better target of questioning is the demonstrated lack of discipline...


----------



## Explorer (Aug 26, 2014)

Lawyer: Audio shows pause in fire in Ferguson - CNN.com

It will be interesting to see how all the converging pieces of forensic evidence (including his recording, the video of the robbery and the hospital report on the officer) eventually play out.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 26, 2014)

Could have been a few things. Maybe a few shots in the firs group of 6 hit, so Brown may have still been moving, then the officer fires again and empties the mag. Maybe the gun jammed. I don't think this is substantial evidence without a video of the shooting to go along with it, and we all know that doesn't exist.


----------



## asher (Aug 26, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> Could have been a few things. Maybe a few shots in the firs group of 6 hit, so Brown may have still been moving, then the officer fires again and empties the mag. Maybe the gun jammed. I don't think this is substantial evidence without a video of the shooting to go along with it, and we all know that doesn't exist.



That actually may; one of the early witnesses said she had a video of at least part of the shooting but complied with the police's request to turn over her phone, and the video has not been released.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 26, 2014)

One of the things I found very interesting with the Rodney King incident was that I only saw the full video. I didn't understand how people hadn't seen the multiple attacks on the police which I had... and then it turned out that there were edited versions being distributed to change the narrative. People who had been manipulated thought they had all the facts, and got upset when those with the true picture made a different judgment than those being manipulated. 

Earlier in this topic, there was also that posting with the incomplete video of Michael Ferguson robbing that store, with the relevant third of the video completely cut out. I'm sure those who were manipulated by the person deliberately editing the video feel that no robbery took place. 

That's why i look forward to seeing just what comes out in the trial. There's a lot of material which will be presented, and which hasn't come out in the news services. I'm very interested in the full cellphone video from that girl, because in her news interview she stated that she started recording from the point she decided the struggle at the window of the police car looked suspicious. If she started taping before the shooting began, that will give an uninterrupted picture.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 26, 2014)

asher said:


> That actually may; one of the early witnesses said she had a video of at least part of the shooting but complied with the police's request to turn over her phone, and the video has not been released.



This is intriguing.

I want to see what happens with the trial too. Kind of sucks for the officer though. If he's found innocent of any crime, he's basically going to have to leave the state or face hate mail/death threats for the rest of his life, plus the rioting will just start up again. And obviously if they convict him he's probably serving 20 years minimum.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 27, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> This is intriguing.
> 
> I want to see what happens with the trial too. Kind of sucks for the officer though. If he's found innocent of any crime, he's basically going to have to leave the state or face hate mail/death threats for the rest of his life, plus the rioting will just start up again. And obviously if they convict him he's probably serving 20 years minimum.





I'll place my bet; He's cleared and just as you say, the rioting/looting/thugging starts all over and doesn't end as well this time, not that the word "well" is the right way to put it.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 27, 2014)

Maybe if the news services actually broadcast the unedited versions of things, that will take away from the manipulative power of the deliberately falsified versions.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Maybe if the news services actually broadcast the unedited versions of things, that will take away from the manipulative power of the deliberately falsified versions.



So much this.


----------



## fps (Aug 27, 2014)

Electric Wizard said:


> ^Because the act of firing a gun is the use of lethal force. Justifiable use of lethal force requires fearing for one's life, which will be questioned if the shooter takes the time to intentionally make a wounding shot. Much like how firing a warning shot can result in charges, it suggests that all options were not exhausted before lethal force was used.
> 
> Intentional maiming (mayhem) is a felony and could even be bumped up to attempted murder.



This can't be true. I mean, it can't be. So once an officer has drawn and fired a gun once, even if it wounds someone, his career could be on the line if he doesn't actually make sure he kills them?


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 27, 2014)

fps said:


> This can't be true. I mean, it can't be. So once an officer has drawn and fired a gun once, even if it wounds someone, his career could be on the line if he doesn't actually make sure he kills them?



According to their training, more or less. In most situations you do not have the time to think about, aim for and fire a wounding shot. This was much the same. Brown was running at the officer. He did not have a ton of time to think about where to shoot, just to shoot. You try hitting a moving target that's about 6 inches wide from 30 feet away. 

There are the rare cases where an officer shoots, the suspect is wounded and determined to not be a threat, although I do not know the technicalities behind this determination. It would probably also vary from police force to police force.


----------



## asher (Aug 27, 2014)

Potentially running. Bullets could have struck his arms when he stopped and turned around but not put his hands yet too, if he put his hands up and didn't charge. Charging a guy who's already been shooting at you after you've cleared ground? It really makes no sense to me.

But we'll see.

There are some interesting comparisons of bullets fired between countries' PDs here:

Cigars, But Not Close :: SteynOnline

And some, uh, fun reading about how hard it could be to snag Wilson, even if he's proved to clearly be in the wrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/opinion/how-the-supreme-court-protects-bad-cops.html?smid=tw-share


----------



## Electric Wizard (Aug 27, 2014)

fps said:


> This can't be true. I mean, it can't be. So once an officer has drawn and fired a gun once, even if it wounds someone, his career could be on the line if he doesn't actually make sure he kills them?


You're missing the point entirely. If an officer fires their weapon and it's demonstrable that the use of force was not a last resort, then yes why shouldn't their career be on the line? The law does not support intentionally shooting someone in a limb. As stated earlier, shooting at all is lethal force and if it's clear that you shot with the intent to avoid fatal injury, your argument for needing to use that level of force goes out the window.

Happening to hit a suspect in a limb when justifiably firing at them is not the same thing, at least for law enforcement. Do that as a private citizen and you could still get charged or sued. It's a strange legal gray area, but people have faced charges for shooting intruders in their own home, which sadly does incentivize killing especially in states with a "castle doctrine".

Point is, I'm not advocating any of this one way or another, just pointing out that some people that spoke out against the Powell shooting and the improper use of force were upset that police didn't improperly use force.

Edit:



asher said:


> And some, uh, fun reading about how hard it could be to snag Wilson, even if he's proved to clearly be in the wrong:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/opinion/how-the-supreme-court-protects-bad-cops.html?smid=tw-share


Jesus... that's pretty alarming.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 27, 2014)

Well, the problem with that being a law, no matter its intent, is simply that once they've drawn their weapon, or if their gun is the only nearest weapon of defense they have, they basically have to kill the perp or face legal problems even if it is unnecessary. The claim here was the police officer dropping his gun and grabbing a stun gun, or some other weapon, was impossible, leaving his gun to be his only option whether deadly force was necessary or not. As the law is he has to kill the perp simply because of his lack of ability to get to a non-lethal weapon first. I understand why the rule exists, to keep cops from maiming people as they see fit, but it leaves zero room for grey area.


----------



## fps (Aug 28, 2014)

Electric Wizard said:


> You're missing the point entirely. If an officer fires their weapon and it's demonstrable that the use of force was not a last resort, then yes why shouldn't their career be on the line? The law does not support intentionally shooting someone in a limb. As stated earlier, shooting at all is lethal force and if it's clear that you shot with the intent to avoid fatal injury, your argument for needing to use that level of force goes out the window.
> 
> Happening to hit a suspect in a limb when justifiably firing at them is not the same thing, at least for law enforcement. Do that as a private citizen and you could still get charged or sued. It's a strange legal gray area, but people have faced charges for shooting intruders in their own home, which sadly does incentivize killing especially in states with a "castle doctrine".
> 
> ...



I agree that their career should be on the line. I don't think I'm missing the point, I think it's worth rereading. My main point is that a bad decision is then compounded if the message is there that if you're going to fire, you have to kill someone. The law promotes a killing when someone is wounded by gunfire. 

My other point is that training only gets you so far when it comes to making calls involving the use of guns in uncontrolled situations, and not far enough, because not everyone is the type of person who is mentally equipped, even with training, to deal with these circumstances in a reliable or correct manner, even if they have been accepted into the police force.


----------



## fps (Aug 28, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Well, the problem with that being a law, no matter its intent, is simply that once they've drawn their weapon, or if their gun is the only nearest weapon of defense they have, they basically have to kill the perp or face legal problems even if it is unnecessary. The claim here was the police officer dropping his gun and grabbing a stun gun, or some other weapon, was impossible, leaving his gun to be his only option whether deadly force was necessary or not. As the law is he has to kill the perp simply because of his lack of ability to get to a non-lethal weapon first. I understand why the rule exists, to keep cops from maiming people as they see fit, but it leaves zero room for grey area.



Yes, this, essentially, I agree, it is terrifying the mindset that must give to policemen and policewomen. The kind of training that must go along with that kind of law, I can't imagine that puts an officer in a mindset that is constructive or collaborative in terms of policing. They're going out there with it in their minds, faintly, constantly, that they could shoot someone at any time on any shift. The kind of paranoia that must engender, I can't imagine.


----------



## asher (Aug 28, 2014)

Because they were already handling this so professionally...

Michael Brown's Mom Laid Flowers Where He Was Shot

tl;dr community puts out some flowers, candles etc as memorial, police let their dogs piss all over it and repeatedly drive over it while closing down the street.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Aug 28, 2014)




----------



## UnderTheSign (Aug 28, 2014)

asher said:


> Because they were already handling this so professionally...
> 
> Michael Brown's Mom Laid Flowers Where He Was Shot
> 
> tl;dr community puts out some flowers, candles etc as memorial, police let their dogs piss all over it and repeatedly drive over it while closing down the street.


"But the police were only doing their job!"


----------



## Tyler (Aug 28, 2014)

So you're saying I could face charges if somebody breaks into my home, and I shoot them in the kneecap and decide NOT to kill them? Correct me if Im wrong, but this is like justifying actual murder as less of a crime than injuring somebody and not finishing them off. I just don't see the sense in it.


----------



## fps (Aug 28, 2014)

Tyler said:


> So you're saying I could face charges if somebody breaks into my home, and I shoot them in the kneecap and decide NOT to kill them? Correct me if Im wrong, but this is like justifying actual murder as less of a crime than injuring somebody and not finishing them off. I just don't see the sense in it.



This is what I'm asking too. It sounds like insanity.


----------



## Randy (Aug 28, 2014)

Enough of the arm chair legal scholar stuff. If there's any truth to this, there's an official document to confirm it somewhere, so somebody please present it.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 28, 2014)

I do know for civilians, from a legal standpoint, you are usually better off killing the assailant as they really can come back later on and sue you if you don't. If someone hurts themselves on your property, even if trespassing, they can sue you as well. Dumbest thing ever though. In no world should a thief be allowed to sue someone for hurting themseleves while doing something illegal.

Reading online there is the general consensus that a gun is meant to be lethal force and police are taught to shoot center mass. This means the assailant will likely end up dead or severely injured, but it is also supposed to be a last resort. It's mostly semantics, but they are taught to 'stop' the target, not kill. It just also happens that stopping the target happens to also be killing the target a descent amount of the time.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 28, 2014)

Recently found out that here in South Korea, legally speaking, the right to self defense only extends as far as equal force until the threat is neutralized. If someone is attacking you without a weapon and you use a weapon to defend yourself, it won't be considered self defense and you'll be charged with assault of some sort. If you BOTH have weapons, you can't use a weapon that's more harmful/deadly than the one they're using (like if they've got a knife, you can't use a gun). If someone is armed and attacks you and you disarm them, you can't turn that weapon back on them. If your attacker flees, you can't pursue them and attack them, because they're no longer a threat. 

That obviously has no real bearing on a police shooting case in the US, but I thought it was interesting to read about and felt like sharing it somewhere. This seemed like as good a place as any .


----------



## Explorer (Aug 29, 2014)

flint757 said:


> I do know for civilians, from a legal standpoint, you are usually better off killing the assailant as they really can come back later on and sue you if you don't.



Better one liar in court than two, as my grandfather would say.



flint757 said:


> If someone hurts themselves on your property, even if trespassing, they can sue you as well. Dumbest thing ever though. In no world should a thief be allowed to sue someone for hurting themselves while doing something illegal.



In a few places I've lived, I've talked to legislators to try to get laws passed, stopping someone from being able to sue for damages for injuries incurred when trespassing. None of the efforts have ever paid off, and I've never understood why. 

I've never thought of this as a radical idea, so I don't get it. 

One of the attempts came about when two trespassers in a subway system were eluding a night watchman, and ran along the top of a train in storage, hitting power lines on the top of the train. The city got sued, and had to pay damages to the trespasser for physical therapy and hospital bills, incurred through that person deliberately breaking the law. 

Another case, in another city, had a drunk fighting off cops, breaking into (leaping over) the turnstiles of the subway, and then fighting off more cops before getting down to the platform and then running off it in front of a train. Again, damages awarded. WTF?

In contrast, when a friend was in the Peace Corps in an African country, some Americans lowered their child into a enclosure with a pond with big signs that said, "Danger! Deadly Crocodile! Stay out!" They decided they wanted their child to be in a photo with the croc. When things went wrong and their child was killed, they wanted the crocodile killed and cut open, and couldn't believe that the authorities wouldn't do it. "There were signs. You put your child in danger, and got that child killed. Now you want us to kill an innocent animal because of you deliberately ignoring the sign? Get out." The American embassy had to explain that the locals couldn't be sued, and that the couple was fortunate that there weren't local laws against child endangerment, because they would probably be held responsible for their own child's death. Oddly enough, the couple refused to believe that they had any responsibility whatsoever. 

Also related, many times while in Spain I'd see Americans go running with the bulls. (confession: I did it once accidentally, and was grateful I wasn't injured. Funny story now, but not so much at the time.) One year an American get gored, and then there was outrage expressed by foreigners that there was no way to instigate a lawsuit against those who let that adult American make his own decision to do something dangerous in a foreign country. 

It's a dangerous world, and I think some Americans have some strange illusion of control over it. it's unfortunate but inevitable that some Americans get a rude awakening now and again.


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 29, 2014)

Explorer said:


> It's a dangerous world, and I think some Americans have some strange illusion of control over it. it's unfortunate but inevitable that some Americans get a rude awakening now and again.



I'd argue that is unfortunate that some Americans don't get a rude awakening more often.


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 29, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> If someone is attacking you without a weapon and you use a weapon to defend yourself, it won't be considered self defense and you'll be charged with assault of some sort. If you BOTH have weapons, you can't use a weapon that's more harmful/deadly than the one they're using (like if they've got a knife, you can't use a gun).



That is by far one of the dumbest f*cking things I've read in a long time, and (with NO disrepect intended towards you!) I am greatful to not live in your country. Your country's laws are basically "Hey, it has to be a fair fight even if you didn't want a fight in the first place and some criminal is in your home!". WTF is that? What if it's a woman defending herself against a male intruder in her home trying to rape or murder her?? "Oooh, well he had a 5 inch blade and you grabbed your son's baseball bat and hit him... NOT FAIR I SAY!!!! Certainly not self defense!!!" 

WTF, I mean really... wtf???  If someone attacks you, especially what if they have intent to kill, what difference does it make how you defend yourself or what you defend yourself with?


Rev.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 29, 2014)

Korea's pretty sexist, so they'd probably think a woman with a gun is less deadly than a man with a knife anyway .

It isn't _my_ country, incidentally, it's just where I live. I'm American. Some parts of the law here seem a little extreme and counterintuitive, definitely, but other parts seem fine to me.


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 29, 2014)

My apologies for using the term "your country" then. 


Rev.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 31, 2014)

As far as civilian defense goes it's really up to the individual state. More liberal states like California or New York are going to be stricter with use of deadly force than say Texas. You KNOW here in NY they are going to search your house for any other guns and look at your permits very carefully, then take it all as evidence assuming you use a gun against an intruder or mugger.

Personally I like Adam Carolla's self defense system, standard police issue 8 round shotgun. First shell is blank, next is filled with rock salt, rounds 3-8 are fully loaded. If someone approaches you and they don't register you pointing a gun at them, cocking it, firing a warning shot then firing another non-lethal shot, they are a threat to you, your life, and your family and you have every right to level them.


----------



## asher (Sep 1, 2014)

At least 5 Ferguson officers apart from Brown shooter have been named in lawsuits - The Washington Post


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 5, 2014)

TheStig1214 said:


> As far as civilian defense goes it's really up to the individual state. More liberal states like California or New York are going to be stricter with use of deadly force than say Texas. You KNOW here in NY they are going to search your house for any other guns and look at your permits very carefully, then take it all as evidence assuming you use a gun against an intruder or mugger.
> 
> Personally I like Adam Carolla's self defense system, standard police issue 8 round shotgun. First shell is blank, next is filled with rock salt, rounds 3-8 are fully loaded. If someone approaches you and they don't register you pointing a gun at them, cocking it, firing a warning shot then firing another non-lethal shot, they are a threat to you, your life, and your family and you have every right to level them.



Unless of course you are firing at some one because they too have a weapon, only they wont have blanks.... You cant say its cool to use a firearm, with blanks and rock salt, in defense but only if the circumstances are perfect. Firearms are for killing and maiming, not just to make loud noises and hope it scares someone. You point that weapon at someone/thing for only one reason, if you need a firearm to deal with an attacker/intruder I would argue that they don't deserve a warning shot, if you need a blank round just in case you were wrong, then you shouldn't own a firearm....


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2014)

You can eject the first cartridge rather quickly and hit em with that rock salt if you notice a weapon. I realize that in the heat of the moment a lot of variables are present that may prevent you from seeing it soon enough, etc, but it is a possibility. And I guarantee getting a chest full of rock salt does NOT feel good. It's enought to at least stun them if they were planning to shoot you.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 5, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> You can eject the first cartridge rather quickly and hit em with that rock salt if you notice a weapon. I realize that in the heat of the moment a lot of variables are present that may prevent you from seeing it soon enough, etc, but it is a possibility. And I guarantee getting a chest full of rock salt does NOT feel good. It's enought to at least stun them if they were planning to shoot you.



There's no denying that the rock salt will hurt, but I stand by my point that if your not willing to do damage to someone then don't point a weapon at them.


----------



## ghostred7 (Sep 5, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> There's no denying that the rock salt will hurt, but I stand by my point that if your not willing to do damage to someone then don't point a weapon at them.


This. One of the "golden rules of firearms" is: do not point your barrel at something you do not wish to destroy.

I've seen less-than-lethal (non-lethal is a misnomer) ammo do damage enough it would kill a person. When deployed to Haiti, we actually had SWAT teams from the US come over to train us on less-than-lethal munitions. 

The salt rounds: penetrated through 1/4" plastic in a couple of places. If this round hits outside of clothing and in soft flesh, it can do damage and possibly kill (one of those stars aligned things, but still) 

The "rubber ball" rounds: when aimed directly at the target (improper shooting for this round: they tell you to aim at the ground so the rounds will bounce up and hit nuts) went through the same plastic in each round. Proper technique (aimed at ground to bounce into target) they just dented the shit out of the plastic

Bean bag: dents

Disclaimer: the rounds we used were a lot bigger than shotgun shells. We didn't have shotguns...but we had M203 40mm grenade launchers under our M16. That's the round we used for less-than-lethals.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 6, 2014)

ghostred7 said:


> This. One of the "golden rules of firearms" is: do not point your barrel at something you do not wish to destroy.



I think of the intention differently. Don't point your weapon at something you don't want to risk killing. 

Sure, the rock salt might kill them, but it won't do the same kind of damage as buckshot. 

There's a small difference between those two, wanting to kill someone, or feeling that the possibility of killing someone is an acceptable risk of an intentionally less lethal load. 

Also... the fact that there is any difference of opinion on this at all demonstrates that there isn't some authority which enforces things one way or the other, right? One side can say that it will go full lethal and that the other side is wrong, the other side can say it will go relatively non-lethal at first and then ramp it up. Who is going to force the other side to change? No one.


----------



## asher (Sep 9, 2014)

I think, when you *assume* that every gun is loaded, you must be okay with *destroying* anything you point the gun at. Not merely risking in either case.

Two more witness reports, both white construction workers, neither of whom knew Brown, who have given statements to the FBI and St. Louis County police. One gave his story to the reporter on anonymity. There's a minor survey clickwall, but you don't really need to give any information to pull the full report.

TL;DR: more reports that Brown was facing Wilson with his hands up when he was struck by most of the shots and that though Brown may have been moving forward towards Wilson (either walking with hands up or stumbling from wounds) at the end "It wasn't a bull rush".

Workers who were witnesses provide new perspective on Michael Brown shooting : News

I can paste the whole article too, but it's lengthy.


----------



## DocBach (Sep 10, 2014)

asher said:


> I think, when you *assume* that every gun is loaded, you must be okay with *destroying* anything you point the gun at. Not merely risking in either case.


 
Assuming all firearms are loaded is the very first rule of firearm safety -- assume any firearm you are handling has a round in it -- and assume any firearm pointed at you has a round in it. 

The mantra repeated by law enforcement is "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."


----------



## asher (Sep 10, 2014)

Oh, absolutely. I was trying to distinguish between "assume" and "risk" but I'm not sure I did that great a job.


----------



## ghostred7 (Sep 10, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I think of the intention differently. Don't point your weapon at something you don't want to risk killing.
> 
> Sure, the rock salt might kill them, but it won't do the same kind of damage as buckshot.
> 
> ...



Fair enough....I'll go textbook answer:
Know your target and what is beyond your target. Also, Doc nailed it w/ the "loaded" piece of the rules.

If I'm pointing my weapon at someone, it's because I feel my life or my loved ones lives are in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm. Less-than-lethal munitions (rock salt, bean bags, etc) won't ever be in the picture in this scenario. IMO, those rounds should be reserved for crowd-control, not the immediate defense of self or public.

Additionally....you're trying to put absolutes on dynamic scenarios. There isn't a single ROE/escalation out there that can be "routine" and in almost all scenarios less-than-lethal munitions aren't what the situation would require.


----------



## Necris (Sep 10, 2014)

Provided they didn't shoot to kill afterward I'd be interested to see how a person firing a blank, and then rock salt at an intruder/assailant would fare in a trial, I believe they would very likely end up in prison.

I feel like it could even be something of a grey area if said person did kill their assailant with their remaining shells.

If I'm going to end up in prison for firing a warning shot because a judge/jury feels taking time for a warning shot shows that I didn't feel I was in mortal danger how am I going to successfully argue that I had time for the blank and rock salt rounds but was still in fear for my life?



Randy said:


> Enough of the arm chair legal scholar stuff. If there's any truth to this, there's an official document to confirm it somewhere, so somebody please present it.



http://www.secondcalldefense.org/se...hooting-wound-and-warning-shots-are-bad-ideas

Maybe this would be somewhat helpful? I know it doesn't cover every state, it covers Ohio specifically, but try as I might I can't find anything that does.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 10, 2014)

Yeah, this country is a bit crazy when it comes to laws related to firearms. We had that woman in Florida who got 20 years I believe for firing a warning shot when her ex-husband, who she has a restraining order against, chased her down in her home after forcing his way in. She didn't want to kill him, but she felt cornered so she fired a warning shot. The guy fled which means, from my perspective, the warning shot had the exact effect you should want; it stopped the assailant without anyone getting hurt. Nope, instead she's in prison. Then you've got the dude in Pasadena, TX who killed 2 robbers. He wasn't in any sort of danger and neither was his property (it was his neighbors home) and they didn't even book him. I would make the comparison with the Zimmerman trial (given it was also in Florida), but likely that'd only spark an unnecessary heated discussion. I'm not saying that what either of those men did was wrong necessarily, but it is very wrong that a woman can go to prison for *not* killing someone (nor intending to).


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Sep 11, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Yeah, this country is a bit crazy when it comes to laws related to firearms. We had that woman in Florida who got 20 years I believe for firing a warning shot when her ex-husband, who she has a restraining order against, chased her down in her home after forcing his way in. She didn't want to kill him, but she felt cornered so she fired a warning shot. The guy fled which means, from my perspective, the warning shot had the exact effect you should want; it stopped the assailant without anyone getting hurt. Nope, instead she's in prison. Then you've got the dude in Pasadena, TX who killed 2 robbers. He wasn't in any sort of danger and neither was his property (it was his neighbors home) and they didn't even book him. I would make the comparison with the Zimmerman trial (given it was also in Florida), but likely that'd only spark an unnecessary heated discussion. I'm not saying that what either of those men did was wrong necessarily, but it is very wrong that a woman can go to prison for *not* killing someone (nor intending to).



Going to prison for firing a warning shot and NOT killing someone. Outrageous.

As far as the 2 robbers, I wouldn't have shot them both in the back as they were running out of my neighbors house, but hey, bad things can happen to those that put themselves in such scenarios. Just ask Michael Brown.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 11, 2014)

I get that. My main point was people are killing people and walking away while people who actively try and make sure no one is hurt end up in jail. While under certain circumstances I'm totally okay with someone defending themselves, their property and their family with lethal force it just amazes me that not killing someone can land you in prison (no one was even injured). I mean if I were to ask a stranger who knew nothing of our law in what scenario someone would go to jail they'd either say in neither or in the one where someone killed the other party, but no sane person would straight up guess that the person trying to defend themselves while not harming someone would be the one who ended up in jail.

They are actually doing a re-trial and now trying to go for 3 consecutive 20 year sentences totaling to a 60 year sentence (case kind of smells funny to me; DA trying to improve his numbers, discrimination, broken laws, who knows, could be anything). No idea what the outcome of this trial is though as I don't see any info on it. Maybe it hasn't officially happened yet.

Marissa Alexander Now Faces 60 Years in Prison for Firing a Warning Shot in Self Defense | The Nation

Even if she deserved to go to jail that sentence is just outrageous given the outcome of events.



While I understand that a gun is meant both as a last resort and only for intent to kill, there shouldn't be an unspoken doctrine that you NEED to kill the other party. Intent is all that should be necessary (as in you accept that you *may* end up killing someone if you are pointing a weapon in their direction). If someone fired a gun near me when I was about to hurt them and I wasn't armed with equal force I'd flee the scene to avoid injury. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable last resort scenario to me. People tend to recite the law and gun safety by-laws when it comes to this topic, but IMO these laws can be wrong in certain circumstances and that really needs to be acknowledged. It's the same thing that leads to law enforcement murdering people in self defense when likely a non-lethal shot may have done the job. That's especially true when the only weapon law enforcement may have on their person is a gun. They may need something more than their fists, but less lethal than a gun to handle a situation and not have something in between that better suits the job at the moment. Why is it unreasonable in such a scenario to use lethal force in a non-lethal manner. I'm aware that the laws in place don't allow for that, but maybe that's something that needs to change.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 11, 2014)

And in the meantime, Ferguson City Council tries to hold a meeting and pretend nothing happened.
Ferguson City Council Meeting Tweets


----------



## Randy (Sep 11, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Yeah, this country is a bit crazy when it comes to laws related to firearms. We had that woman in Florida who got 20 years I believe for firing a warning shot when her ex-husband, who she has a restraining order against, chased her down in her home after forcing his way in. She didn't want to kill him, but she felt cornered so she fired a warning shot. The guy fled which means, from my perspective, the warning shot had the exact effect you should want; it stopped the assailant without anyone getting hurt. Nope, instead she's in prison. Then you've got the dude in Pasadena, TX who killed 2 robbers. He wasn't in any sort of danger and neither was his property (it was his neighbors home) and they didn't even book him. I would make the comparison with the Zimmerman trial (given it was also in Florida), but likely that'd only spark an unnecessary heated discussion. I'm not saying that what either of those men did was wrong necessarily, but it is very wrong that a woman can go to prison for *not* killing someone (nor intending to).



I would NOT consider those two cases to be an indication of an overwhelming trend. If pressed, I could pull up several examples of people shooting and killing somebody in 'self defense' and going to jail for it. Just because sometimes people receive jail time in scenarios where they DON'T kill a person doesn't mean there's a bias toward that happening more often than not.

If I was going to gather an overall theme from this, I'd say simply anytime you discharge a firearm at or near a person, there's a high likelihood of oversight into your reasoning and a significant possibility you'll be held criminally liable. There are some outliers but overall, that's a concept I'm comfortable with.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 11, 2014)

^ I would agree with that in traditionally blue states, Randy, but not in traditionally red states. The scales swing in the other direction here.


----------



## Randy (Sep 11, 2014)

That you're more likely to face legal prosecution for discharging a firearm if you don't kill a person than if you do? I'm not disagreeing that it's possible, but I'd have to see more evidence of that.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 11, 2014)

It is more likely for three reasons: The other party is alive to plead their case, according to the law your life wasn't in 'imminent danger' if you didn't kill the person, discharging a firearm 'unsafely' is a crime in and of itself if you don't have a 'good' reason for doing so (in a state with castle-like laws). 

Assuming there isn't some other bias happening in Marissa's case had she killed her husband she wouldn't be in jail or facing a life sentence. Even if that isn't a problem across the board that is certainly a problem with Florida. Basically if someone is trying to kill you and you fire a warning shot instead of a kill shot you just 'assaulted' someone with a firearm which gives you the potential for a 20 year sentence. The DA in this case is pushing for the max for whatever reason (I won't presume to know why, but it doesn't exactly seem on the up and up either). 

I get, to some degree, why things swing that way sometimes, given how the laws are written in some states, but to me some rewriting needs to happen.


----------



## Randy (Sep 25, 2014)

As the forum sanctioned "WTF Police?" thread, I guess this is the best place to post this.



Thoughts?


----------



## asher (Sep 25, 2014)

That he's going to get off scott-free.

Ohio grand jury decided not to do anything to the cop who gunned down the bb gun holder in Walmart.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 26, 2014)

Whats the full story to that vid? What's the area like there, is there any reason for the police to be so tightly strung there? Had there been any recent/frequent occurance of attacks on police?
On visual it looks like the cop got excited way too quick, could not confirm a threat visually and opened up. That there is an unjustified shooting which actually supports previous arguments, in that instance.... He will have to have a real good reason to justify his actions here.


----------



## ghostred7 (Sep 26, 2014)

I'm a big supporter of LEOs (in case you couldn't tell from my other posts in this thread), but based solely on that video Randy posted, I can't see ANY reason for the LEO discharging his firearm there. Granted, the guy was a little "jumpy" when getting his wallet (or whatever) out of the vehicle, but the LEO *SHOULD* have waited to see what was actually in his hand. Based on the sound of the LEOs voice, he sounded very young and was likely a n00b (rookie) with obvious restraint issues.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Sep 26, 2014)

Randy said:


> As the forum sanctioned "WTF Police?" thread, I guess this is the best place to post this.
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?




That cop is a ....ing moron. That poor guy is lucky he's not dead and that that cop is a terrible shot. He fired 4 times at close range. Once AFTER the guy had his hands up. When the guy asked the cop why he shot him, the cop says he "dove" back into the car head first. He didn't dive anywhere. He turned around, maybe a little quickly, but that cop had no reason at all to fire his weapon on him.

I'm all about backing up LEO's, but I don't see any reason to do so based on the video footage here. If he has no more restraint than that he has no business wearing that badge. Rookie or not. Hope he enjoyed being a cop while it lasted.


----------



## asher (Sep 26, 2014)

That guy's been on the force 7 years, FWIW.

At least he got fired.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Sep 26, 2014)

asher said:


> That guy's been on the force 7 years, FWIW.
> 
> At least he got fired.


He's also been charged with aggravated assault.


----------

