Rampant Police Brutality and Media censorship in Ferguson Missouri

[XDSkyFreak]

Funny. This all started because of one simple fact: police officers carry guns. That should not happen. EVER. Your day to day police officer should not carry a gun for his duties. In any sane country you have the average police that make sure order is kept and try to defuse situations, handle minor crimes, and you have a special paramilitary group trained to handle the rare situations that would actually require guns. There is 0 reason ever for you to cary and use a gun to stop and arrest an unarmed civilian with no combat training.

But what about armed roberies? Or crazy fucks with guns shooting up places? What about them? Your average cop sets up a perimeter and gets civilians out of there, while you send in your special unit to deal with the crazy idiots with guns. The US has the SWAT teams for that, but now every god damn retard with a badge can just gear up in tactical armor, get an AR and go to town ... smart america, smart.

What about a riot? First up lets be clear here: a riot is a group of civilians with improvised weapons actively destroying property of trying to harm other civilians/police. THAT IS A FUCKING RIOT. A group of people protesting on public ground with no violent behaviour is not a riot. Ok, the protest were most likely illegal. Does that justify carrying rifles there and shoting them? Does that justify gear more suited to a warzone? Nope. Normal riot gear is a body armor, riot shield and helemt, baton, 1 hand thrown tear gas grenade, 1 peper spray and a tazer. AND ABSOLUTLY NO FIREARMS ANYWHERE ON THE OFFICER! You want to know why? Because standard tactic is to advance as a shield wall and disperse the crowd as non-violently as posible (basicaly use a show of force to make a point, not actual force. A sword keeps another in it's sheath). But if things do get violent you don't want a gun that a protester can pull off you in the middle of things. You only use tear-gas, bean bags and rubber bullets when the shield wall has failed and it's obvious the crowd is hell-bent on violence. Now what did Ferguson PD do? Aside from carying firepower for a fucking warzone into what was not a riot? They got there, formed a line with no one actually using standard riot gear or tactics, but millitary grade shit and acting like bullies with guns, began insulting and provoking the crowd ("Bring it you apes") and then fired up tear-gas, rubber bullets and generally using violent means to disperse what was a non-violent though illegal protest. Class act. And they wonder WHY the crowds got violent afterwards.

And why did this start again? Oh yeah, because in the states you dumb twats don't have the brains to train your cops to be peace-keepers, but armed thugs. Give a guy a gun and his first instinc when under any form of preasure is to go for the gun. Take away the guns, and then you will cops learn reason, learn to defuse situations, learn non-lethal ways to take down unarmed criminals. Take away the source of power for a bully and you turn him into a normal member of society. Not all cops are bullies, but if the situation in the states shows anything is that there are way too many idiots with guns and badges abusing their power. And the trully worst part about it is that SOME idiots defend these cops. So I will say it again one last time: There is 0 justification for using guns on unarmed civilian targets, criminal or otherwise. "he went for my gun!" don't carry one, you don't need it to maintain order and peace. "but he's armed" move the fuck back and radio for whatever special unit you have for such cases, then isolate the area and get civilians out of there. Your priority is to keep the public safe. "but I can't take down an unarmed guy with only a baton, peper spray and tazer" ... dude ... quit the force, you suck. "he has a knife/sword" well maybe it's good ideea to invest money in close combat defense training like aikido or krav maga than in more guns.

As for what is happening in ferguson right now? There has been no official investigation, but with a media black-out and the constant idiocy of the chief of police I would take everything coming out of there with a grain of salt. Maybe outside investigation from the fbi can shed some light as to what is going on here. Oh yeah, and rule number one kids: the media doesn't give a crap about truth, what they want is a story to draw views and money. So don't take that for granted.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Funny. This all started because of one simple fact: police officers carry guns. That should not happen. EVER. Your day to day police officer should not carry a gun for his duties. In any sane country you have the average police that make sure order is kept and try to defuse situations, handle minor crimes, and you have a special paramilitary group trained to handle the rare situations that would actually require guns. There is 0 reason ever for you to cary and use a gun to stop and arrest an unarmed civilian with no combat training.

The US is hardly the only country to arm ordinary police officers. There's no reason why that is automatically a disaster.

 

[LetalisK]

And once again, we have a Trayvon situation, and people are rushing to conclusions on both sides of the argument before an official investigation has finished. Just skimming this thread, I see people on both sides going "no, you're wrong, YOU don't have the facts!"

Pro-tip: NO ONE HAS THE FACTS YET. The incident is still under federal investigation.

Seriously, people, can't we wait until the FBI finishes investigating and shares its findings before coming to conclusions? Think for yourselves, instead of believing your preferred political wing news outlet's every damn word. They don't know anything more than you do, they're reporting on hearsay and rumor just as they've done for years now.

And before you remind me that YOUR news outlet is totally right and couldn't possibly be mistaken, think back to the Trayvon case and how virtually EVERY outlet reported the case wrong from the very start. Stop falling for this sensationalist shit.

Spoiler: Remember, folks, this is the average trustworthiness of your modern media outlet.

I'm going to echo this. I haven't been following this nearly as closely as I would because I've just started training for my new job, but I do know two things. One: Cops can be colossal asswipes capable of these types of things. Two: The media, at best, feels no shame in twisting a story towards controversy to get eyeballs. If the initial reporting is correct, it's purely coincidence and would have been reported that way regardless.

 

[Ratty]

The Autopsy is in, unarmed surrendering or fleeing teenager Micheal Brown was shot at least 6 times. Including 2 shots to the head.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

Autopsy understandably causes rage in Ferguson, Governor sends in National Guard.

Human rights watch team from Amnesty International is deployed in the USA for the first time in history. Say the Police not allowing them to observe post-curfew areas indicative of the lack of transparency in this investigation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-brown-shooting-amnesty-international-sends-team-within-us-for-first-time-as-national-guard-deployed-9675149.html

 

[AgedGrunt]

Yeah, about the whole waiting for the facts to come out from an official investigation, evidently people have a problem even with trusting that. St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch is under siege; there's an online petition to push him out to make room for a special prosecutor, with arguments saying he can't be trusted to prosecute a police officer.

And apparently Eric Holder, head of the US Department of Justice, isn't satisfied with the autopsies performed and has ordered his own, allegedly making it the third autopsy on Michael Brown.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/critically-wounded-in-shooting-arrested-after-ferguson-curfew-goes-into/article_03b8ca92-776d-525d-b95e-4387ef63a3e2.html

At what point is it fair to say that people don't want justice but to confirm what they believe?

Edit: As it was just updated that Brown was shot six times. Before that gets jumped on, the number of shots fired does not suggest anything about "excessive force". Police training, from what I understand, teaches officers to shoot until a threat is defeated. The level of force used is the critical factor (the fact that the officer drew his firearm). That he did, it suggests that the officer felt the threat was immediate to his life or others; the decision was made to use lethal force and an officer can reasonably take 5-6 shots in a few seconds. As I understand, Brown is a large guy, which needs to be considered.

Once you have made the choice to draw a firearm and the final decision to shoot, there is no "shoot to disable" (e.g. shoot the leg). That's neither police training nor is it intelligent since it's not guaranteed to stop a threat in a life-or-death situation. The decision of whether to use lethal force comes when you pull a gun; the question is was that an appropriate response, period.

But so long as people remain convinced of racism, they will keep fighting until they're vindicated, for as many riots as it takes to get the answers they want.

 

[Ratty]

The Autopsy is in, unarmed surrendering or fleeing teenager[footnote]At least the evidence suggests to me that he was surrendering or attempting to flee. Since he was apparently at least 2 or 3 feet away when the shots were fired, and the nature of his injuries conform with eyewitnesses accounts of him trying to surrender. Plus the final shot apparently went through the top of his head and through his shoulder. So he was either trying to surrender, as eyewitnesses have said, or preparing to charge the Police Officer, which seems unlikely from an 18 year old who already had 4 or 5 gunshot wounds.[/footnote] Micheal Brown was shot at least 6 times. Including 2 shots to the head.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

No gunpowder on the body suggests Brown was not near the gun when it was fired. (The department did not provide Brown's clothing.) His head was bowed for what was apparently the final shot, to the top of his brain.

Autopsy understandably causes rage in Ferguson, Governor sends in National Guard.

Human rights watch team from Amnesty International is deployed in the USA for the first time in history. Say the Police not allowing them to observe post-curfew areas indicative of the lack of transparency in this investigation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-brown-shooting-amnesty-international-sends-team-within-us-for-first-time-as-national-guard-deployed-9675149.html

^reposted so it wouldn't be buried near the bottom of the previous page.

Yeah, about the whole waiting for the facts to come out from an official investigation, evidently people have a problem even with trusting that. St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch is under siege; there's an online petition to push him out to make room for a special prosecutor, with arguments saying he can't be trusted to prosecute a police officer.

And apparently Eric Holder, head of the US Department of Justice, isn't satisfied with the autopsies performed and has ordered his own, allegedly making it the third autopsy on Michael Brown.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/critically-wounded-in-shooting-arrested-after-ferguson-curfew-goes-into/article_03b8ca92-776d-525d-b95e-4387ef63a3e2.html

At what point is it fair to say that people don't want justice but to confirm what they believe?

So you would trust this Police department, after all these examples of brutality and overwhelming attempts to not be transparent in this case, to effectively gather evidence against and prosecute itself?

 

[JarinArenos]

So you would trust this Police department, after all these examples of brutality and overwhelming attempts to not be transparent in this case, to effectively gather evidence against and prosecute itself?

This needs repeating. At this point the entire department can be considered potentially complicit. This is like letting an accused criminal hire his prosecuting lawyer and claiming there's no conflict of interest.

 

[DrOswald]

So do I. Does that mean that the police have a free pass to put a bullet in my brain the second things get a little tough?

No, I couldn't. But I'm not trained to handle this kind of stuff. They are. The officer sucked at his job.

The fact he's still alive says he's pretty good at his job. And yes, if you get into a struggle fighting a cop, and he/she doesn't think they will win the fight, they can use lethal force against you.

The fact that the other guy is did begs to differ. A police officer killing an unarmed person is not something to be proud of. The job of the police is to protect civilians. A civilian is dead when he very easily could've stayed alive. He sucked at his job. The recent string of incidents in this town show just how little the police here care for the people of this town. Actually I find it kind of ironic that you have an AoT avatar, because this is exactly the kind of stuff the Military Police has been pulling in the later chapters, just to a lesser degree.

So all the money on tazers, pepper spray and batons is clearly wasted. Single punch, go right for the gun?

A single punch is potentially lethal force. This isn't boxing where people use padded gloves. This is real life, where a single punch to the head or face can kill or permanently cripple a man.

There was an incident of racial violence not long ago where I live. A few white kids attacked a black kid. A single punch was thrown and impacted on the side of the black kids head. This single punch caused bleeding inside his cranial cavity. The boy died a couple days later.

Even a single punch is potentially lethal force.

This is made even more complicated by the fact that there is absolutely no way to know if a person will stop at one punch. By the second punch a person is probably incapable of defending themselves. And then they are at the mercy of someone beating them to death.

People die all the time from unarmed melee's. Not a month ago a black man was killed with a choke hold by a police officer.

Batons, pepper spray, and tasers are all tools that can prevent a lethal force situation, but none of them are effective enough or easy enough to use that they are viable weapons in a lethal force situation.

Now, I am not saying the police officer was in the right in this instance. From what I have read there is not enough information to make that determination yet. But I am not going to pretend that unarmed is the same as harmless.

 

[Something Amyss]

He wouldn't be trained otherwise, police (at least in the US) are generally trained to shoot until the target goes down. That's why police shooting always involve an amount of bullets that often surprise people.

It's also why it's baffling that the early claims were a "couple" of shots. Realistically, I knew this was probably untrue, and certain;ly the authorities would have known better at that point, which means it only looks worse in the end.

Both sides are being idiots in this whole affair.

Assuming there are only two sides is one of the biggest problems in the first place. Saying "both sides are idiots" is probably quite cathartic, but it's no more helpful than the "sides" you're chastising.

Final point: Rioting and looting is not a good way to show how peaceful and nice your community is.

I agree. Thankfully, that's not particularly relevant here. However, I have to point out this is one of the dismissal tools one of those "sides" you were talking about has been using. Perhaps something worth considering if you're going to make sweeping statements.

Funny. This all started because of one simple fact: police officers carry guns.

Technically true in that it's impossible to shoot someone with a gun you don't have. But since the issues here run deeper than a firearm, it's hard to say this sort of incident started because of the firearm. The firearm may not have helped, but....

Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the escapist.

Well, you do have people using the argument that he was a criminal to justify the shooting, even though it wasn't known by the officer at the time. I don't think anyone's said "he deserved to die" here, but they have used his criminal actions as justification.

The Autopsy is in, unarmed surrendering or fleeing teenager Micheal Brown was shot at least 6 times. Including 2 shots to the head.

The article nor the autopsy as I've seen it, does not mention him surrendering. To the contrary, it doesn't seem to conclude either way.

 

[Ratty]

The Autopsy is in, unarmed surrendering or fleeing teenager Micheal Brown was shot at least 6 times. Including 2 shots to the head.

The article nor the autopsy as I've seen it, does not mention him surrendering. To the contrary, it doesn't seem to conclude either way.

This is true. I thought about going back and rewording it but wasn't sure how. Certainly the bent head and lack of gunpowder on the body corroborates the reports that he was surrendering though. Because he was facing the officer the whole or almost the whole time he was shot, standing at least 2 or 3 feet away. There are also apparently no signs of a struggle as the Police have purported there were.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/michael-browns-family-addresses-preliminary-autopsy-results/378686/

EDIT: I edited the post to reflect that he was apparently surrendering or fleeing was part of my conclusions based on the evidence via footnote.

 

[Something Amyss]

Now, I am not saying the police officer was in the right in this instance. From what I have read there is not enough information to make that determination yet. But I am not going to pretend that unarmed is the same as harmless.

I thought the point of the post you quoted was that a firearm as a primary response to a far less lethal method of attack was overkill and likely ludicrous. I'm editorialising a little, but I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with an unarmed person being harmless.

 

[DrOswald]

Now, I am not saying the police officer was in the right in this instance. From what I have read there is not enough information to make that determination yet. But I am not going to pretend that unarmed is the same as harmless.

I thought the point of the post you quoted was that a firearm as a primary response to a far less lethal method of attack was overkill and likely ludicrous. I'm editorialising a little, but I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with an unarmed person being harmless.

People often talk about an unarmed person as if they represent an easily subdued and incapable of causing serious damage threat and therefore any use of lethal force is brutality. Perhaps I overstated it a bit when I said harmless.

In any case, my point remains: Unarmed melee is a case of lethal force and therefore lethal force is an appropriate response. Less lethal weapons (such as pepper spray, tasers, and batons) are less effective and harder to use. They are not effective enough to be counted on to save a defenders life once the situation has gotten out of control. They can be used as effective deterrents and may prevent a lethal force situation (they maintain control) but they are not a substitute for lethal force in a lethal force situation.

In any case, my last two lines were more about clarifying that I was not taking sides in this issue so I didn't take as much time screening them for exact wording.

 

[Longhorn]

Bottom line is, if you in any way side with the police, you're ignorant as all hell.

This all started because an officer of the law decided to kill an unarmed black man simply because he was walking in the middle of the street. The autopsy reports the police officer shot Brown at least 6 times, one of them a dome shot that confirms this was an execution and Brown had surrendered. There are three eyewitness testimoniein that all have the same story, while the police keep making up different stories. There is no evidence proving Brown tried to take the officer's gun, there is no evidence proving that Brown commited any kind of crime prior to the killing. Even if he did, the officer had no right to execute him while he was unarmed and surrendering, because he didn't know Brown was a robbery suspect, and even if Brown did commit a crime, you don't kill a criminal when they've surrendered and clearly have no weapon.

The police wouldn't even let Brown's mother identify the body.

So of course, protest started. And it was all peaceful protest, in which the civilians had their hands up in the air just as Brown had his. The police instigated violence by firing rubber and wooden rounds and throwing teargas. There was no reason for the police to be there in the first place, and you can't fucking tell me this isn't about race. White people have paraded down the streets with their guns to over-excerize their 2nd amendment right and no police are ever present

A Howard student was shot, and the police tried to lie and say it was a drive-by. Every street was blocked off and choppers were patrolling around in the sky, and I'm supposed to believe a car full of black men shot a girl and the police didn't notice?

And then a VERY, VERY, VERY small fraction of the civilians in the area decided to loot while the police were occupied with the protest, which likely wouldn't even have happened if the police didn't show up and incite violence in the first place. They even took off their ID's goddammit.

Are we going to ignore the fact that there were black men defending as many stores as they could from being looted to preserve the image of the protesters? Are you willingly going to believe all the anti-blackness bullshit the media feeds you?

And don't even get me started on how the 911 operators in Ferguson handled getting calls about the police brutality.


Give me one. ONE good reason why anyone should side with the police.

 

[Something Amyss]

In any case, my point remains: Unarmed melee is a case of lethal force and therefore lethal force is an appropriate response. Less lethal weapons (such as pepper spray, tasers, and batons) are less effective and harder to use. They are not effective enough to be counted on to save a defenders life once the situation has gotten out of control. They can be used as effective deterrents and may prevent a lethal force situation (they maintain control) but they are not a substitute for lethal force in a lethal force situation.

Well damn, it sounds like you are saying the officer was justified. By that logic, shooting almost anyone who comes at you in any sense is completely justified, because they're armed with lethal weapons and the only way to be sure is to put them down like a dog. But then, even bullets aren't surefire (pardon the pun), so we may have to escalate to be safe. After all, if even a single punch could kill, the only way to be safe is to make damn sure they never get up again. Hell, if someone points pepper spray at you, you should probably shoot to kill. I mean, it probably won't kill you, but how can you be sure? And paradoxically, you can't rely on it yourself, because it might lack the effectiveness you're afraid of and how can you be sure???

 

[Nielas]

In any case, my point remains: Unarmed melee is a case of lethal force and therefore lethal force is an appropriate response. Less lethal weapons (such as pepper spray, tasers, and batons) are less effective and harder to use. They are not effective enough to be counted on to save a defenders life once the situation has gotten out of control. They can be used as effective deterrents and may prevent a lethal force situation (they maintain control) but they are not a substitute for lethal force in a lethal force situation.

Well damn, it sounds like you are saying the officer was justified. By that logic, shooting almost anyone who comes at you in any sense is completely justified, because they're armed with lethal weapons and the only way to be sure is to put them down like a dog. But then, even bullets aren't surefire (pardon the pun), so we may have to escalate to be safe. After all, if even a single punch could kill, the only way to be safe is to make damn sure they never get up again. Hell, if someone points pepper spray at you, you should probably shoot to kill. I mean, it probably won't kill you, but how can you be sure? And paradoxically, you can't rely on it yourself, because it might lack the effectiveness you're afraid of and how can you be sure???

You can travel back in time, techno-magically disable the gun and then see what the new outcome is. Since self defense is a preventive action, we can never really be sure what the outcome would have been otherwise.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether a reasonable person would think that he/she was in real danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm. If someone is punching me, I will ether run away or escalate.

 

[Something Amyss]

You can travel back in time, techno-magically disable the gun and then see what the new outcome is. Since self defense is a preventive action, we can never really be sure what the outcome would have been otherwise.

Barring that, you must shoot them to be death because you can't know the future.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether a reasonable person would think that he/she was in real danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm. If someone is punching me, I will ether run away or escalate.

If someone's punching me, I will attempt to remove myself from the situation or subdue them, as I've been trained. I have trouble believing that police training is so much more inept than Jujutsu that his options were legitimately "retreat" or "escalate."

I get that for some punk ass ***** like George Zimmerman, a coward who thought he was the Punisher and got the crap kicked out of him by a black kid, but I guess I have higher standards for someone who has been sanctioned to be a legal presence and to discern the appropriate use of firearms.

 

[TheNewGuy]

There was no reason for the police to be there in the first place, and you can't fucking tell me this isn't about race. White people have paraded down the streets with their guns to over-excerize their 2nd amendment right and no police are ever present.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't be present if a bunch of gun-toting white people were parading down the street. That shit be scary, lol.

But in all seriousness, yeah it is pretty clearly a race issue and the police are pretty clearly in the wrong. It's a pretty bad situation down there right now and my heart goes out to the people of Ferguson.

If someone's punching me, I will attempt to remove myself from the situation or subdue them, as I've been trained. I have trouble believing that police training is so much more inept than jujutsu that his options were legitimately "retreat" or "escalate."

I get that for some punk ass ***** like George Zimmerman, a coward who thought he was the Punisher and got the crap kicked out of him by a black kid, but I guess I have higher standards for someone who has been sanctioned to be a legal presence and to discern the appropriate use of firearms.

Well look at you Mr. Fucking Tough Guy, with all your jujutsu and shit. It's easy to comment on the internet about what you'd do in a situation like that, but it's not always so easy when you're actually in those kinds of situations.

 

[Therumancer]

Yeah, about the whole waiting for the facts to come out from an official investigation, evidently people have a problem even with trusting that. St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch is under siege; there's an online petition to push him out to make room for a special prosecutor, with arguments saying he can't be trusted to prosecute a police officer.

And apparently Eric Holder, head of the US Department of Justice, isn't satisfied with the autopsies performed and has ordered his own, allegedly making it the third autopsy on Michael Brown.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/critically-wounded-in-shooting-arrested-after-ferguson-curfew-goes-into/article_03b8ca92-776d-525d-b95e-4387ef63a3e2.html

At what point is it fair to say that people don't want justice but to confirm what they believe?

Edit: As it was just updated that Brown was shot six times. Before that gets jumped on, the number of shots fired does not suggest anything about "excessive force". Police training, from what I understand, teaches officers to shoot until a threat is defeated. The level of force used is the critical factor (the fact that the officer drew his firearm). That he did, it suggests that the officer felt the threat was immediate to his life or others; the decision was made to use lethal force and an officer can reasonably take 5-6 shots in a few seconds. As I understand, Brown is a large guy, which needs to be considered.

Once you have made the choice to draw a firearm and the final decision to shoot, there is no "shoot to disable" (e.g. shoot the leg). That's neither police training nor is it intelligent since it's not guaranteed to stop a threat in a life-or-death situation. The decision of whether to use lethal force comes when you pull a gun; the question is was that an appropriate response, period.

But so long as people remain convinced of racism, they will keep fighting until they're vindicated, for as many riots as it takes to get the answers they want.

The situation is becoming more complicated however. Last night a few minutes after this all went down I posted some stuff about the autopsy and what it showed. I even gave a few links since I was checking multiple sources. Right now I find no references to the upwards angle of the bullets, though the point about them all coming from the front is still being made. Ditto for comments about him likely having fallen to his knees after multiple gunshot wounds.

I was concerned about this to be honest, as too many powerful people and media outlets invested heavily in one side of this to be proven wrong, especially since then fingers can be pointed at them for enflaming violence and racial tensions for their own motives. It doesn't surprise me that there is a third autopsy being called for since the current one still makes the whole "execution when he surrendered" theory highly unlikely. On top of that it's also not surprising that certain politicians want a "special prosecutor", preferably someone they can control. Prosecutors convict dirty/wrongdoing cops all the time (and it's a career maker) the DA's office and police don't always play well together, heck they even make TV shows about that whole relationship. I actually suspect it's not so much that the prosecutor's office "can't be trusted" to do the job, but rather that without being able to even further load the deck they won't get the ruling they want.

I guess I'm going to become a conspiracy theorist because I know what I read (and love me or hate me, I'm not stupid, and I wouldn't have posted some of the things I did earlier at a time I knew you could easily find articles about the autopsy all over the place and on nearly every website with a news interest), and as things are developing it seems more and more like powerful people who jumped on this are trying to bypass due process and the investigative system. The difference between this and other police shooting cases which are handled (with cops being convicted in fact) is the riots, the profile, and the early commitments to a specific outcome.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the kid that was shot (at all) based on the robbery. But as I said to begin with we needed to wait for the investigation. After all if the cop controlled the situation and DID kill him after he surrendered that would be wrong, it would be wrong even if the kid had just shot a couple of people, dropped his weapon, and surrendered. I thought it was going to come down to a question of whether the cop had control of the situation as I posted a few times as that seemed to be the likely defense for such a situation. The investigation comes out and now it seems people are making a mess of it due to the attention, with people cutting the corpse until they get the answers they want, how they want them. Federal oversight okay, but now a push for a third autopsy? The eyes of the world were on the first two, so what's the point of number three if that happens?

I'll also say that for those who have been accusing people who think like me of "defending police brutality" that the problem is people can't understand what it's like to be in the position of the cop. It's easy to sit back at a distance and say what a cop should or shouldn't do, and what's reasonable use of force, and how it's a "murder fantasy" to talk about how multiple potential opponents could justify lethal force even if someone says "I surrender" while other people might be continueing the fight. The cop has a right to come home alive too, and as I've said myself many times "I'd rather be tried by twelve, than carried by six". I was not a cop, but I was a Criminal Justice major, and I worked security for two casinos, both the size of small cities (I'm not kidding) and I had to deal with similar attitudes with people on the outside or from other non-security departments trying to act like they knew how security should handle dealing with rowdies in nightclubs, shut offs in bars, ejections, and escorts. It's easy to be an "expert" when your not the guy who risks having some guy break a bottle and try and stab you with the glass, or getting beaten to a pulp by a bunch of angry guys who have lost all their money, got loaded, and convinced themselves the casino must have cheated. Of course then again I was good at my job, I generally did not get into fights, and could control even tense situations. Albeit to be fair some of that did involve intimidation (such as making sure I had enough obvious backup on scene). The point is I understand to an extent, and being familiar with a lot of incidents, even in situations like that, the guy who puts his hands up and acts submissive could very well try and sucker punch you if he thinks your distracted.

At any rate, this case is going to get even more "interesting", and that isn't a good thing. When this is over it's likely to remain divisive and both sides aren't going to believe anything the other presents, no matter what evidence is on records, and the more "experts" are brought to re-do, and re-check everything the more complicated things are going to get. Not to mention that just about anyone should be concerned when the government ovverules the normal authorities and has a "special" anything rather than the intended people brought in. In a lot of cases that's sort of like being in the middle ages and being told that the local constable is being made to hand over the investigation to an "inquisitor".

 

[DrOswald]

In any case, my point remains: Unarmed melee is a case of lethal force and therefore lethal force is an appropriate response. Less lethal weapons (such as pepper spray, tasers, and batons) are less effective and harder to use. They are not effective enough to be counted on to save a defenders life once the situation has gotten out of control. They can be used as effective deterrents and may prevent a lethal force situation (they maintain control) but they are not a substitute for lethal force in a lethal force situation.

Well damn, it sounds like you are saying the officer was justified. By that logic, shooting almost anyone who comes at you in any sense is completely justified, because they're armed with lethal weapons and the only way to be sure is to put them down like a dog. But then, even bullets aren't surefire (pardon the pun), so we may have to escalate to be safe. After all, if even a single punch could kill, the only way to be safe is to make damn sure they never get up again. Hell, if someone points pepper spray at you, you should probably shoot to kill. I mean, it probably won't kill you, but how can you be sure? And paradoxically, you can't rely on it yourself, because it might lack the effectiveness you're afraid of and how can you be sure???

I don't care what the shape of lethal force is. Knife, gun, or unarmed melee. Lethal force is lethal force. You take a swing against a policeman then you have declared your intention to injure or kill that policeman. Once that declaration is made all bets are off. If the policeman can non lethally subdue the individual then all the better, but an officer in that position has a split second to decide on a course of action and to execute that action. If they grab for the pepper spray and it doesn't work they are likely dead.

Therefore:

If the policeman was attacked as described by the police, then yes it was justified. The attacker used potentially lethal force against an officer and attempted to take his gun (possibly to use against the officer.) In those circumstances lethal force is entirely 100% justified.

On the other hand, If he was not attacked as described but the event went down as described by the witness, if it was an unjustified shooting, then the policeman should be treated as a murderer because what happened was murder.

I have not taken sides because I don't know what happened. Unlike some, I am waiting for actual evidence one way or the other before making a conclusion.

You claim my point of view "sounds like you are saying the officer was justified." As I made it perfectly clear that lethal force is an appropriate response to lethal force and said absolutely nothing else, the only way I can make sense of this is that you assume the attack on the police officer did happen as the police officer reported. In that case I have to ask: what twisted world do you live in where a beating and a struggle for a gun is not a potentially lethal situation?

 

[Ratty]

Right now I find no references to the upwards angle of the bullets, though the point about them all coming from the front is still being made. Ditto for comments about him likely having fallen to his knees after multiple gunshot wounds.

"Baden and Parcells focused on two shots in particular that correlated with witness accounts of the shooting. The first was the shot to that entered the top of Brown's head near his hairline behind the exit wound by his right eye. Parcells said he and Baden believed the shot was fired from above, down onto Brown's head, because the bullet appeared to have reentered into his right shoulder.

The other shot of note was the one in the middle of his right arm. "There was a witness statement that said [Brown] was walking away and he kind of jerks so that would have occurred when he was walking away, and then he turns around," Parcells said, demonstrating Brown's possible movements. "It's consistent with that."

Baden added that the bullets were fired from at least one or two feet away, and that there was "no evidence of a struggle." The only wounds apart from the bullet wounds were abrasions on Brown's face, attributed to him falling down after the shots to his head. "

-From the preliminary autopsy findings of Dr. Michael Baden and forensics pathologist assistant Professor Shawn Parcells.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/michael-browns-family-addresses-preliminary-autopsy-results/378686/

I'll also say that for those who have been accusing people who think like me of "defending police brutality" that the problem is people can't understand what it's like to be in the position of the cop. It's easy to sit back at a distance and say what a cop should or shouldn't do, and what's reasonable use of force, and how it's a "murder fantasy" to talk about how multiple potential opponents could justify lethal force even if someone says "I surrender" while other people might be continueing the fight. The cop has a right to come home alive too, and as I've said myself many times "I'd rather be tried by twelve, than carried by six". I was not a cop, but I was a Criminal Justice major, and I worked security for two casinos, both the size of small cities (I'm not kidding) and I had to deal with similar attitudes with people on the outside or from other non-security departments trying to act like they knew how security should handle dealing with rowdies in nightclubs, shut offs in bars, ejections, and escorts. It's easy to be an "expert" when your not the guy who risks having some guy break a bottle and try and stab you with the glass, or getting beaten to a pulp by a bunch of angry guys who have lost all their money, got loaded, and convinced themselves the casino must have cheated. Of course then again I was good at my job, I generally did not get into fights, and could control even tense situations. Albeit to be fair some of that did involve intimidation (such as making sure I had enough obvious backup on scene). The point is I understand to an extent, and being familiar with a lot of incidents, even in situations like that, the guy who puts his hands up and acts submissive could very well try and sucker punch you if he thinks your distracted.

This guy was a cop for six years. If he felt he couldn't handle an unarmed assailant he had plenty of time to get retrained or find another job.

At any rate, this case is going to get even more "interesting", and that isn't a good thing. When this is over it's likely to remain divisive and both sides aren't going to believe anything the other presents, no matter what evidence is on records, and the more "experts" are brought to re-do, and re-check everything the more complicated things are going to get. Not to mention that just about anyone should be concerned when the government ovverules the normal authorities and has a "special" anything rather than the intended people brought in. In a lot of cases that's sort of like being in the middle ages and being told that the local constable is being made to hand over the investigation to an "inquisitor".

Given the history of racial profiling and unrest in the county letting the "normal authorities" handle this is like asking the Catholic Church to handle the investigation and punishment of it's own people who abused children. And we see how that went for decades and decades and decades until finally they got pressure from outside authorities. Even if the local Prosecutor is somehow totally impartial the people of Ferguson don't believe he will be.