Rampant Police Brutality and Media censorship in Ferguson Missouri

[Areloch]

An inquiry:

From what I've read, we're in general agreement that the officer shot the kid when he was attempting to escape, hitting him in the arm. Is that correct?

If that is correct, that means the cop exerted lethal force on a suspect that was attempting to flee. He had no means of threatening the officer or other theoretical nearby people as we (as far as I've read) are in agreement that he was unarmed at this point.

Actually, forgive me for butting in, shooting someone in the arm is not an example of exerting lethal force. Law enforcement and military personal are at times specifically trained to take such shots. So, while I can't speculate the officer's intent, shooting someone in the arm, leg, or shoulder while arguably excessive is not necessarily an example of lethal intent.

Actually, US police are trained to shoot to kill, because if you're using your gun, you're going to get someone dead.
'Non-lethal shooting' is largely a myth. Shooting someone in an extremity can just as easily lead to death as shooting them in the center of mass, so the police aren't trained to risk missing to take limb shots.

So if he was adhering to his training, his poor aim was probably merely a reflection of the stressful situation and he was therefore putting forth lethal intent.
If he was TRYING to shoot the kid's arm, then he was not only using a lethal weapon 'incorrectly', he directly went against his training to do so. He would have been trying to be a action hero or some sort of cowboy and putting the suspect and other people nearby's lives at risk.

In short, as far as I am aware, all weapons training beats into your head that if you're going to use your gun on something, it's to kill it.

 

[Austin Manning]

I've already told you several times that he was not fleeing when he was fatally shot, and there's no evidence that he was shot with intent to kill while fleeing.

This no such thing as shooting someone WITHOUT intent to kill and people who are trained to use fire arms professionally Know this. They're instructed to only point a gun at a person who they're prepared to shoot and only shoot at a person if they're prepared for that person to die. Shooting to wound is a myth, propagated by television and movies. Truth be told, there is no safe place to get shot. A bullet to the leg can easily rupture an artery, or cause other severe, crippling damage. The same is true with a bullet to the arm.

 

[Saltyk]

An inquiry:

From what I've read, we're in general agreement that the officer shot the kid when he was attempting to escape, hitting him in the arm. Is that correct?

If that is correct, that means the cop exerted lethal force on a suspect that was attempting to flee. He had no means of threatening the officer or other theoretical nearby people as we (as far as I've read) are in agreement that he was unarmed at this point.

Actually, forgive me for butting in, shooting someone in the arm is not an example of exerting lethal force. Law enforcement and military personal are at times specifically trained to take such shots. So, while I can't speculate the officer's intent, shooting someone in the arm, leg, or shoulder while arguably excessive is not necessarily an example of lethal intent.

Actually, US police are trained to shoot to kill, because if you're using your gun, you're going to get someone dead.
'Non-lethal shooting' is largely a myth. Shooting someone in an extremity can just as easily lead to death as shooting them in the center of mass, so the police aren't trained to risk missing to take limb shots.

So if he was adhering to his training, his poor aim was probably merely a reflection of the stressful situation and he was therefore putting forth lethal intent.
If he was TRYING to shoot the kid's arm, then he was not only using a lethal weapon 'incorrectly', he directly went against his training to do so. He would have been trying to be a action hero or some sort of cowboy and putting the suspect and other people nearby's lives at risk.

In short, as far as I am aware, all weapons training beats into your head that if you're going to use your gun on something, it's to kill it.

While that conflicts with information I?ve always been given and held true, I won?t argue it out of stubborn adherence to my own dogma. Instead I?ll just take that under advisement as a possible circumstance until I can obtain more information on this topic to confirm.

Put simply, it is much harder to hit the arm than the torso. It's smaller and generally moves around erratically. Plus, pistols are not very accurate even at short range. You can shoot dead on the same spot and the bullet will certainly wander within a small range.

The leg is not much different, but there is also the femoral artery in the leg. If that so much as gets nicked, the victim will bleed out in a matter of minutes.

As a rule, police shoot for the torso. It's much easier to hit. Much more likely to end violence and prevent a violent perpetrator from harming themselves or a member of the public. They also intend to kill when they do this.

As the previous poster mentioned (and I mentioned earlier today) shooting someone in a nonlethal manner is largely a myth. There is a reason police don't simply shoot the leg when a suspect is running. Shooting to wound or disarm is a fabrication of fiction writers.

Think of it this way. What if they tried to shoot to disarm and failed? Now, they have a wounded, armed, angry, potentially violent person who will likely harm people.

 

[AkaDad]

If the officer was actually injured, there would have been a press conference immediately afterward showing the injuries that he sustained. That would have stopped this whole situation. Instead the officer is in some undisclosed location and not one shred of medical evidence to prove that he was injured.

Also, the medical examiner is on record saying there was no evidence that Michael Brown was in a fight.

And yet there are people saying it's an absolute fact that Officer Wilson sustained injuries.

Now let's say the officer was assaulted, it's still not a justification to fatally shoot an unarmed person who was fleeing then surrendering.

This was a bad shooting. Period.

 

[Saltyk]

Exactly. This may be hard for some to accept, but the police shoot to kill. They aim for the torso partly as it is easier to hit and partly because they intend to kill you. It's also why they tend to fire so many rounds.

Not everywhere they're not. Dutch cops, for instance, are only trained to shoot for the torso when it's a case of self-defense. In other cases they're trained to go for the legs.

Interesting. I've never heard that. Still, it's a bad idea to try to shoot someone in the leg or arm. You can easily kill a person even without meaning to. I'm fairly certain US police are only supposed to fire in cases of clear and present danger. Such as an armed individual who threatens officers or civilians.

I'm actually curious to see what the cruiser's camera picked up. That should clear up a lot of this.

From what I gathered the Ferguson PD only recently acquired two dashboard cams, neither of them as of yet installed in cruisers.

I really hope that's not true. A dashboard cam would certainly shed a lot of light on this case.

I was under the impression that Dashboard Cams were standard equipment in Police cruisers at this point. They are very useful tools for a lot of reasons. They can help show when police go too far or help prove when an officer is under threat.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Being from a country where police don't carry guns, I have to ask you American folk:

When is lethal force allowed? Because I'd imagine (maybe I'm just being optimistic) it would only be in response to lethal force. And no matter what way you spin it, there's no reason to assume the guy who got killed would have tried to kill the police officer.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Interesting. I've never heard that. Still, it's a bad idea to try to shoot someone in the leg or arm. You can easily kill a person even without meaning to. I'm fairly certain US police are only supposed to fire in cases of clear and present danger. Such as an armed individual who threatens officers or civilians.

Yet it works wonderfully well for us. I used the example before, but a few years back there was a mentally ill/unstable man waving a gun around in Rotterdam, and even he was just shot in the leg and overpowered. We have a very different view on using violence and how and when to use it. In 2011, out of the 30 incidents in which Dutch officers actually had to fire their weapons, only 5 of those ended up killing the suspect. We got a pretty good handle on those things.

I really hope that's not true. A dashboard cam would certainly shed a lot of light on this case.

I was under the impression that Dashboard Cams were standard equipment in Police cruisers at this point. They are very useful tools for a lot of reasons. They can help show when police go too far or help prove when an officer is under threat.

Alas, but while they got a few, they couldn't afford to get them installed. [http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-dashcams/] I suppose it doesn't help either that there's no nation-wide legislation surrounding it.

It's a really screwed up situation; they can show up in heavily armoured trucks wearing camo-fatigues with high-grade assault rifles, yet can't afford a couple of cameras. There's definitely some priorities going horribly wrong there.

 

[AkaDad]

Being from a country where police don't carry guns, I have to ask you American folk:

When is lethal force allowed? Because I'd imagine (maybe I'm just being optimistic) it would only be in response to lethal force. And no matter what way you spin it, there's no reason to assume the guy who got killed would have tried to kill the police officer.

The only way lethal force is justifiable is when a police officer in fear for his or her lives.

At least 5 eyewitnesses have stated that Michael Brown was fleeing then he stopped and surrendered. No one is in fear for their lives from someone fleeing or surrendering. The only scenario where he would be in fear is if Michael Brown decided to stop fleeing, then turn around and charge the police officer firing his weapon. So the only scenario that people are trying to sell is that he was running towards gunfire, which is a ridiculous scenario.

There are no eyewitnesses on record stating that he was charging the officer.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Being from a country where police don't carry guns, I have to ask you American folk:

When is lethal force allowed? Because I'd imagine (maybe I'm just being optimistic) it would only be in response to lethal force. And no matter what way you spin it, there's no reason to assume the guy who got killed would have tried to kill the police officer.

The only way lethal force is justifiable is when a police officer in fear for his or her lives.

At least 5 eyewitnesses have stated that Michael Brown was fleeing then he stopped and surrendered. No one is in fear for their lives from someone fleeing or surrendering. The only scenario where he would be in fear is if Michael Brown decided to stop fleeing, then turn around and charge the police officer firing his weapon. So the only scenario that people are trying to sell is that he was running towards gunfire, which is a ridiculous scenario.

There are no eyewitnesses on record stating that he was charging the officer.

Even if he was charging him though, is that really a good enough reason to outright kill him? Unless I'm mistaken, one thing everyone agrees with is that Brown was unarmed. How likely was it that he was going to beat a police officer to death with his bare hands in broad daylight, over jaywalking of all things?

I get that hindsight is 20/20 but even so, six bullets seems like overkill.

 

[EternallyBored]

Being from a country where police don't carry guns, I have to ask you American folk:

When is lethal force allowed? Because I'd imagine (maybe I'm just being optimistic) it would only be in response to lethal force. And no matter what way you spin it, there's no reason to assume the guy who got killed would have tried to kill the police officer.

The specifics will vary somewhat from state to state, but in many cases it has to do with the shooter holding the "reasonable belief" that their life was in danger, or that someone else life was in immediate danger. If someone rushes you with a knife, it is generally considered reasonable self-defense to shoot that person. It gets murky depending on the situation, as what constitutes a fear for ones life can vary from person to person.

In this case, if Mr. Brown turned around and rushed at the police officer with clear intent to harm before he fired, especially if the officer's story of trying to grab his gun and physically assaulting him beforehand are true, the cop would likely be found to be justified in shooting him, because even an unarmed assailant can kill you in the right circumstances, considering the distance, the shooting would still be in kind of a murky grey area, but it's unlikely he would be convicted.

If, however, the officer fired first, before Mr. Brown turned around, then that would likely qualify as excessive force, unless the officer can somehow prove or justify that Mr. Brown would have been an immediate lethal threat to someone else, it is unlikely he would be able to adequately justify firing his weapon at a fleeing suspect's back.

 

[AkaDad]

There are other questions that need to be asked.

Why did officer Wilson confront two people by himself?

Where was his partner?

Why didn't he wait for backup?

Everything about this shooting is bad.

 

[AkaDad]

At least 5 eyewitnesses have stated that Michael Brown was fleeing then he stopped and surrendered.

5? I've seen exactly one. And there was also another who (unknowingly) said on camera that Brown "came back at him" (the officer).

Where are these other four eyewitnesses, out of curiosity? Do we have actual video of all five, or did the media report that there are five?

Even if he was charging him though, is that really a good enough reason to outright kill him? Unless I'm mistaken, one thing everyone agrees with is that Brown was unarmed. How likely was it that he was going to beat a police officer to death with his bare hands in broad daylight, over jaywalking of all things?

You don't think that a person who stands at 6'4", weighing 300 pounds is capable of causing physical harm and/or lethal harm to an officer significantly smaller than he is? The "kid" was a football player, he could definitely do some damage.

I get that hindsight is 20/20 but even so, six bullets seems like overkill.

Officers are trained to shoot until the assailant goes down, to prevent reprisal. They don't take the time (nor do they have the time) to count how many shots they fire in a life-or-death situation. Six seems excessive only because you're looking at the number, and not where they hit (four of said rounds hit Brown in the arm, which would not have disabled him or stopped an attack if indeed Brown was charging him).

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/08/_5_eyewitness_accounts_of_michael_brown_s_shooting.html

Here's the CNN interview saying Michael Brown surrendered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advkpZIuq2U#t=76

 

[AkaDad]

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/08/_5_eyewitness_accounts_of_michael_brown_s_shooting.html

Here's the CNN interview saying Michael Brown surrendered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advkpZIuq2U#t=76

Well, that's interesting. I'd only heard of the one.

But what I find a bit more strange is that, while looking through the internet for the five people you talked about, I stumbled upon this:

http://bearingarms.com/police-allege-dozen-witnesses-confirm-michael-brown-charged-injured-police-officer/

Supposedly, at least a dozen eyewitnesses claim that Brown charged the officer. Or rather, the police claim there are that many.

And see, this is the problem I'm having with this case in general. We have (supposedly) eyewitnesses claiming completely antithetical things. Something smells very dirty.

Those 5 eyewitnesses have nothing to gain or lose by coming forth. Officer Wilson has a lot on the line along with the Ferguson PD to not tell the whole truth.

Btw, the Ferguson PD , in the past, wrongly arrested a black man, beat him in the cell when he complained, then tried to charge him with destruction of property for bleeding on their uniforms.

 

[Ratty]

And I don't think it should be a capital offensive to punch an officer and then run away.

He resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer. Those are felony charges with good reason. And if he was charging the officer after that, then yeah, I'm all for the officer doing what he has to in order to protect himself.

And as I believe said before - I agree that if Wilson was being charged shooting was reasonable. But if he started shooting at Brown while Brown was trying to get away then Wilson was using excessive force.

We're not at the stage yet where a Cop should be able to be the judge jury and executioner of a man who is fleeing. And yes I consider shooting at the man who was running away unarmed to be an excessive use of lethal force, regardless of whether Brown charged or tried to surrender as a result.

I've already told you several times that he was not fleeing when he was fatally shot, and there's no evidence that he was shot with intent to kill while fleeing. Since you insist on continuing to repeat it after we've gone over this several times, I have to presume you have no interest in reporting the situation honestly.

And I believe I've already agreed with you more than once that yes he was facing the officer thus not technically fleeing when he got the majority of the shots.

But that, if witnesses are telling the truth, Wilson started firing on him when he was fleeing. So it's like this. >Brown Flees >Wilson Fires and Hits Brown >Brown turns to surrender/confront >Wilson fires 5 more times. Wilson started firing at him while he was fleeing at the start of this scenario, while he was not a threat. Again, this is if witness accounts are true. If Wilson did not start firing at Brown until after he turned around that's very different.

Maybe Wilson intended to fire a warning shot and accidentally hit Brown with that first shot, then acted on instinct when Brown charged/appeared to charge, we don't know yet. But I think pulling the gun on the guy who was fleeing was the wrong call, potentially to the point of being negligent. Regardless of what transpired after Brown turned around.

Also a "vested interest" would be a heavy handed way of putting things

Apparently not, since as previously established, you admit that you don't know the facts of the case, yet you are clearly making presumptions about his innocence.

Like I said, I lay much of my suspicion on what appears to be a culture of antagonism and abuse against much of the populace in the entire Police Department there. Based on the way they handled the situation following the shooting and an apparent history of racial profiling and violence. If there is sound physical evidence and/or at least a few outside witnesses who will corroborate that Brown was getting ready to charge Wilson I will agree that he acted reasonably shooting Brown to protect his own life, and should not be charged with murder. But if none of the currently available evidence is contradicted I also think the blame for the escalation of the situation to that point likely lays with Wilson for opening fire on Brown while he was trying to run away.

At the most I would say I have personal experience that shows me that who have acted like we've seen over the last week are capable of some shit. And I don't necessarily give them the benefit of the doubt in such things.

Neither do I, but I also don't presume an alleged criminal to be innocent simply because his family and the media insists that he is. Especially when said media has ignored or squelched information before to push its own agenda. That's a recipe for disaster.

I presume an alleged criminal is innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law, or I try to. I even try to do so with Wilson, but the actions and history of his colleagues have made it damned hard not to assume the worst of anyone associated with them.

PS

Btw, the Ferguson PD , in the past, wrongly arrested a black man, beat him in the cell when he complained, then tried to charge him with destruction of property for bleeding on their uniforms.

Not sure how that's relevant to this case, exactly?

My point is mainly this: if all of these eyewitnesses actually exist, then that means that somebody's got to be lying. So I'm awfully curious about this, and hope we hear more about these supposed witnesses. Because if they're real, then this case just got a hell of a lot messier.

It demonstrates a culture of racially motivated violence within the PD. Which is very relevant when considering the potential motives that might have been swirling in Wilson's head when he decided to start firing on Brown.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Even if he was charging him though, is that really a good enough reason to outright kill him? Unless I'm mistaken, one thing everyone agrees with is that Brown was unarmed. How likely was it that he was going to beat a police officer to death with his bare hands in broad daylight, over jaywalking of all things?

You don't think that a person who stands at 6'4", weighing 300 pounds is capable of causing physical harm and/or lethal harm to an officer significantly smaller than he is? The "kid" was a football player, he could definitely do some damage.

Of course he could have. The question is whether he would have. What, did he just suddenly decide to turn around and kill an armed police officer in broad daylight, just because he was pissed?

And why go for the gun? Do American police not have pepper spray? Or any way at all of subduing somebody bigger than them without resorting to killing them?

I get that hindsight is 20/20 but even so, six bullets seems like overkill.

Officers are trained to shoot until the assailant goes down, to prevent reprisal. They don't take the time (nor do they have the time) to count how many shots they fire in a life-or-death situation. Six seems excessive only because you're looking at the number, and not where they hit. Four of said rounds hit Brown in the arm, which would not have disabled him or stopped an attack if indeed Brown was charging him.

Fair enough. One bullet still seems excessive.

Really, I'm less concerned about this one case in particular and more about how in general it's legal for a police officer to kill someone for picking a fight with them. (or seems to be from my limited perspective)