The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Race is a central part of this issue. That said, let's tread very carefully when discussing it, and let's not wander into generalized discussion of race relations.
 
People on both sides of the debate who are quick to blame race for all of this are also the same people who are convinced they know the truth before all of the facts are presented. And I doubt that the facts will change their minds. But back to firearms, will a police response that looks like something from Gaza or Ukraine change the gun control debate?
 
The police respond with the equipment they do because of safety issues. If they did not have all that equipment and one of them gets hurt there would be a lawsuit. Also when responding to any incident its best to have a overwhelming response.

If the officers didnt have rifles and armored vehicles than whats to stop a group of young men from taking up arms and assaulting the officers? Looks like the protesters are plenty angry. If I was an officer assigned to handle that crowd I would want to have the protection of the armored vehicle, helmet, vest and rifle. Wouldnt you?
 
If using the best equipment and resources is the most important factor then why not simply monitor all mobile phone and social media activity in the area and then take out anyone who promotes violence with a drone?
 
Ferguson police dropped the ball by their response. The people were already upset and by responding heavy handed with the intent to intimidate (no other rational for their first actions) did nothing but create the spark needed for this mess. Seriously, what type of police organization watches protester from their rifle scopes? A lot of folks from both sides are still shaking their heads in disgust over this. Now we got Sharpton, Holder, and the bunch involved and a governor demanding prosecution which now means the likely hood of a just investigation will be pushed aside for a political solution. And now we have a cop/criminal justice professor putting out ths article “I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me" which only inflames the sitiation. God only knows what will happen if this turns into an actual small shooting match...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/
 
Last edited:
The truth is that if the police were underequipped you guys would complain and ask why they were not equipped properly. If they were overequipped you would still complain. The police cant win.

I do know one thing and that most of us here are not officers. Its best to let the officers decide what they need versus a group of non-officers. Im sure they wouldnt be wearing all that stuff if they didnt have to. I wore some equipment in the military and none of it was comfortable.
 
just guessing

but money spent on a video / audio of a man attacking an officer might have been a better decision than spending money on filling up the 100 gallon tank on their armored truck.

I know, I know, it may not have happened that way but they should know that a an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of kevlar.
 
The truth is that if the police were underequipped you guys would complain and ask why they were not equipped properly. If they were overequipped you would still complain. The police cant win.

I do know one thing and that most of us here are not officers. Its best to let the officers decide what they need versus a group of non-officers. Im sure they wouldnt be wearing all that stuff if they didnt have to. I wore some equipment in the military and none of it was comfortable.
Click to expand...

Sure, let them decide to show up with APCs and MRAPs to intimidate. Heck, let's have those in DC decide what is best for us. Sorry, some of us like to see a measured response and not veiwing a crowd through a rifle scope.
 
Anyone else surprised, if not shocked, that an officer with a broken face and rung bell was able to land 6 fairly close rapid-fire hits on a guy at ten yards or less? I honestly think it would be informative to know if it was his dominant eye that was damaged, since that would make it even more remarkable.

As far as police kit...
If they'd called in the Guard or state patrol (as an intermediary force) after the first night of rioting when the cops found they were incapable of restoring order, there would have been no need for them to have MRAPS, camo gear, snipers, tear gas, sonic cannons, and MREs. That's, sort of the reason we have these other more powerfully equipped organs of law enforcement/peace keeping --so the low level guys don't have to kit up both mentally and physically in the course of their daily duties. Once order is forcefully restored, the armored Guardsmen leave quickly, and the police go back to their limited role of keeping the peace.

Or am I supposed to expect Officer Friendly to forget his hyper-aggressive, military inspired, Mossad licensed, 'situation control' tactics when he's going through the more mundane tasks of law enforcement? We're so focused on "officer safety" anymore, that I wonder if these training/tactics aren't convincing some cops that every plane is a missile, every suitcase a bomb...

TCB
 
In my area, and i assume most others, local police departments are often dominated by veteran infantrymen. I find it hard to believe they suit up in the equipment they used in Iraq without returning to the mentality of a warzone.
 
Question on the legality of the concept of a curfew.

As a non-lawyer I'm as guilty as most of not understanding my rights, privileges, and the difference between them. That's one of the reasons I'm so thankful to the lawyers who come in here and try to help us out on their own time.

My question is:

How does a curfew, the first amendment, and the right to freedom of movement reconcile?

If I lived in Ferguson during the Midnight to 5AM curfew:

How can that curfew prevent me from driving across town at 2AM to visit my insomniac father? Isn't that Freedom of Association?

If I have a 9AM meeting in Nashville, TN and Approximately 5 hour drive, I'd have to leave at 4AM. Isn't that freedom of movement going between the states?
 
Anyone else surprised, if not shocked, that an officer with a broken face and rung bell was able to land 6 fairly close rapid-fire hits on a guy at ten yards or less? I honestly think it would be informative to know if it was his dominant eye that was damaged, since that would make it even more remarkable.
Click to expand...

Not suprising at all if the firing commenced with the attacker @35 feet and at go! the attacker starts attacking and the shooter starts shooting ...... The Tueller drill figures 2 seconds for 21 feet .... add more than a second onto that ..... I would be surprised if only 6 shots were fired ..... by the time the atacker gets to 3 feet, where many witnesses say he dropped, it's be darn hard not to hit him somewhere ..... my guess is that the round in the top of the head hit him when he was falling at the officer's feet .....
 
my guess is that the round in the top of the head hit him when he was falling at the officer's feet
Click to expand...
We don't know exactly what happened yet, and it might be some time before all the details are released.

That said, this is an L&CR thread, so let's stick to legal issues.
 
While the video is disturbing it’s a little difficult to see exactly what happened. If he had a knife as reported he was approaching the officer when they shot him, so it may be a justifiable shooting. Several of the witnesses keep stating that they should have “shot him in the leg” or “Tased him”. I’m not sure what Police are trained to do when someone comes at them with a knife, but don’t think it’s to shoot them in the leg. Anyway, obviously this is not what this community needs right now.
 
That was my question. IF...he thought his life was in danger,I would think law enforcement would be trained to shoot at the threat until it is stopped or no longer a threat. Heard the people on the dead person's side say there is no excuse for six shots. Anyone know this? I am not a cop, obviously, and I don't know how they are trained.
 
If they had video they would pretty much have to release it unedited at some point. They can claim it was destroyed/malfunctioning, but releasing an edited only version isn't legally feasible. Claiming it was malfunctioning when it wasn't is dangerous to say the least in the computer age. "the cameras weren't working and we just replaced the memory on the computer at the vehicle, and the memory at the station computer, and the memory at our back-up site. We incinerated the old hard drives." That isn't going to fly.
There is a similar, although possibly worse, shooting in Beavercreek, Ohio right now. The states AG has delayed release of the video until after a grand jury is convened to decide on whether to indict, but then the video will have to be released. If the family of the victim/perp hadn't agreed I think it would already be released. I can only assume the video is very clear on what happened, the family expects the grand jury to support their position, and they see no reason to add fire to the flames in the couple of weeks in between.

It is quite difficult to edit a photo such that it can't be seen under magnification/scrutiny by a professional analyst. Nearly impossible to do so with video. Any such video would receive plenty of scrutiny.
For background:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/1-of-2-officers-back-on-job/ng6MW/
 
Last edited:
Heard the people on the dead person's side say there is no excuse for six shots. Anyone know this? I am not a cop, obviously, and I don't know how they are trained.
Click to expand...

I've trained law enforcement and armed security agencies in judgmental use of force for close to 20 years. What I teach is, "Shoot to stop; shoot until it stops." It takes as many shots as it takes.

You need to also bear in mind that it takes time for the officer to recognize that the threat is terminated, and stop firing. In simulator training, two or three shots are often fired after the perpetrator drops the weapon.

From what I've seen from the autopsy results, it appears that the officer fired several shots at Brown, which hit his right arm and didn't stop him. Then he fired one which struck him (IIRC) near the right eye. That would have been fatal, and probably instantly caused him to stop and drop. The officer fired the last shot into the top of his head as he started to drop, because he had not yet realized that Brown was stopping his aggression. Whether he was justified in shooting is ultimately a (grand) jury question. I would need to know more before rendering an opinion.
 
If the eye shot dropped him as Gary suggests , it's pretty well known that folks have a hard time inhibiting the next shot at a stop signal. Research has shown this and if there is a trial, the defense time needs to call the appropriate folk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top