The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
NateKirk said:
There's a reason people didn't wear BA before Vietnam.
Click to expand...
Huh????

What's the tie-in to body armor and Vietnam? We didn't have body armor in Vietnam, we had flak jackets. That's ALL they were -- they were intended to offer some protection against flying shrapnel. They were in no sense whatsoever "body armor."
 
I like what Doug Wylie from PoliceOne says about this.

Neither the initial story from Brown's friends nor the initial story from the Ferguson PD make any sense, so why don't we just wait peacefully for the investigations to finish.
 
What's the tie-in to body armor and Vietnam? We didn't have body armor in Vietnam, we had flak jackets.
Click to expand...

Other than a time point, I also don't get the tie-in to Vietnam, but we did have body armor. It certainly wasn't widely issued, but it was there TO issue, even in World War II - Wikipedia mentions they were first used on Okinawa.

Neither the initial story from Brown's friends nor the initial story from the Ferguson PD make any sense, so why don't we just wait peacefully for the investigations to finish.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, however we do have a somewhat partial autopsy released that makes the statements about being shot:

  • 10 times
  • in the back
  • with his hands up
a little contradicted.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think the "we were outgunned" excuses went out the window some years ago when fully automatic weapons started being surplussed out of Federal/military coffers and started routinely showing up in increasingly large quantities in even small-town police departments.
 
Last edited:
Flak jackets are, by definition, body armor.

Actual flak jackets were developed for aviators, most notably bomber crews, and used steel plating to stop shell fragments.

Ballistic vests of the type used in Vietnam largely did away with the steel, making them flak jackets in name only.

Some versions used, I think, ceramic plates, early versions of today's cermat, others used fiberglass plates.
 
TV ME's solve things in an hour. The real world takes somewhat longer, days, sometimes weeks or more.

So, now we have a "witness" saying shot in the back when his hands were up...." and a certified medical examiner saying "shot in the front", but being somewhat vague on how many bullets and which ones did what, when.

The autopsy can give us the position of the body at the moment of impact, and bullet paths, but it cannot give us definitive reasons for the position. It takes other evidence to establish that clearly, as there is virtually no position a human body can take that does not have at least two different explanations possible as to the reason for it.

Its a mess, and there are going to be people who will stick to the shot in the back while surrendering story no matter WHAT the autopsy shows. After all, its the same govt doing the autopsy, and it could be a cover up, right?

The same folk who insist on calling the 6'4" 290lb subject a "boy" are unlikely to believe the autopsy report is unbiased, UNLESS it favors their version of events, in which case, it will become gospel to them.

I can see being upset and angry, even protesting, but using the event as justification for rioting before the system can even clearly ascertain the true facts of the event is NOT a reasoned act, unless the reason is to steal.
 
As I see it, when people are throwing Molotov cocktails ..... that's not a protest ..... that's a riot. Arson and pillage are not legitimate forms of protest. Policing is over, and the National Guard, with whatever level of force necessary to restore order, is called for.
 
There's about three different groups involved in this.

1) The Looters. They're in it to break things and steal stuff and they have a reasonable expectation of getting away with it. The initial spate of looting a week ago was the worst of it (the Walmart ended up suffering a $1 million loss between lost inventory and damage), but there's been some here and there since.

2) The Rioters. There's a bit of overlap between this group and the looters, but the focus of this group is less on stealing/breaking than it is on confronting the police for past wrongs, both perceived and real. They're not so interested in raiding convenience stores, very interested in insulting cops and throwing things at them.

3) The Protestors. This group really is peaceful. This is by far the largest group. They want to make sure this doesn't get swept under the rug. Problem is, the other two groups use them for cover.

Groups 1 and 2 are by and large not made up of Ferguson residents (those residents I've talked to- and I have talked to several- will tell you this). Some have even traveled from out of state (one person in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article a day or two ago was revealed to have come from Nashville, TN just so he could curse at the officers).

Problem is, how do you separate groups 1 and 2 from #3? The protestors have a legitimate first amendment right to protest. The others know they can move in and out of this group to cause mayhem, much to the consternation of the police and the protestors.

Is it legal to restrict this area to residents only? How can the police allow protesting while keeping a lid on everything else? I'm not sure the National Guard will find it easier to do this than the Missouri Highway Patrol. Ferguson PD, and St. Louis County PD have.

There is a rising number of shop owners using firearms to deter the looters and other troublemakers from their own establishments... that may be part of the answer. But not every owner can or will do that. Nor will the police or National Guard necessarily keep allowing it.
 
Technosavant said:
Nor will the police or National Guard necessarily keep allowing it.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your statement, TS. 2A in Missouri is heavily protected, even in a "state of emergency", as I noted earlier.
 
I don't understand your statement, TS. 2A in Missouri is heavily protected, even in a "state of emergency", as I noted earlier.
Click to expand...

It is indeed protected. They can't take their guns. But they could force them to leave. Or not allow them in at all (depending on when they arrive, where they're headed to, that sort of thing).

It remains to be seen what, exactly, the national guard will be doing that the police haven't done. It seems to me that calling in the guard is a bit of a vindication of some of what the Ferguson and STL County PDs have been doing... while their initial heavy handedness may have been unnecessary, there is a bit more needed down there than teddy bears and singalongs. That works fine with the protestors. Not so much with the looters and rioters.
 
AFAIK, the autopsy results just released were from the private autopsy funded by the family's attorney. The official autopsy hasn't been released, to my knowledge. You can expect the private findings to be deliberately vague to present a case for ambiguity later in the press, and court.

There will also be a Federal autopsy. I expect the findings there to be as acceptable to the segment of the public using this event for their own purposes as the autopsies of the Roswell Alien in 1947 or JFK in 1963.
 
You do know the JFK autopsy was thoroughly bungled according to pretty much every forensic examiner on record as it was performed by naval doctors who were not trained in forensics. If the official autopsy on this is as bad I expect there will be a good bit of outrage.
Roswell just shows the air force isn't any better trained than the navy. :)

We have all seen situations like this so many times where wild stories are flying from both sides. The family always says the "victim" was a gentle giant. The officers always say the "suspect" was on PCP. A photo on facebook proves little. I am sure there are many white suburban kids who pick their nose in between pulls in WOW dungeons with such pictures on facebook. None of this is reliable.

Everyone always says the trouble makers are from another group or city. Arrest records following riots aren't all that convincing.
 
Last edited:
motorhead0922 said:
One bullet left 5 wounds???... Can someone help interpret the diagram?
Click to expand...
Read the NY Times text closely. One shot went through the right eye at a steep downward angle (assuming Mr. Brown was standing), traveled through the face, presumably went through the mouth, exited through the jaw, and re-entered at the collarbone. My hunch is that Dr. Baden is describing each major structure damaged by this bullet as a separate wound.
 
The president was just on the radio ..... mentioned protecting "Constitutional Rights" including the "Right to Free Speech" and "Freedom of Assembly" ..... yet in the same breath, spoke against "carrying guns".

Picks and chooses, does he not?

We have the rule of men, and not of Law.
 
You do know the JFK autopsy was thoroughly bungled according to pretty much every forensic examiner on record as it was performed by naval doctors who were not trained in forensics.
Click to expand...
IIRC, at that time, there was no specific federal statute making it unlawful to kill the president. That's why Oswald was arrested on state charges of murder. It was unlawful under state law to remove the body from Texas before an autopsy and release by the coroner.

The private autopsy was done by NYC's former chief medical examiner so he has some credibility. My understanding, though, is that he has not reviewed the x-rays taken at the official autopsy.
 
No one likes their own kind being shot or killed by government agents that aren't their own kind. If you have strong support for what the police in Ferguson did after the shooting do you also support what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge, or what could have happened with Clive Bundy in Nevada?

There is no excuse for looting and rioting, and I sympathize with those who have to balance a response with the freedom to assemble and protest. But it seems to me that this is still a scenario that requires us to at least question authority. Tactics and equipment that we developed for Iraq and Afghanistan are at play now in the United States. That includes the use of drones, they just aren't armed- yet.
 
If you have strong support for what the police in Ferguson did after the shooting do you also support what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge, or what could have happened with Clive Bundy in Nevada?
Click to expand...

This. Also important to note there was no rioting, looting, or other communal unrest in response to those (McVeigh and the LV couple shooters were motivated individuals, not hordes of people). I think one could also easily argue that authorities were farther 'off base' leading up to those incidents than what we have here (a questionable defensive shoot under possibly profiling-initiated circumstances, but hardly a flagrant and gross rights violation let alone an execution). Certainly nothing rising to the level of outrage (which somehow consistently goes unregistered) when an officer ND kills a suspect subdued at gunpoint.

IIRC, at that time, there was no specific federal statute making it unlawful to kill the president.
Click to expand...
To be honest, why should there be? If I'm killed out of state, I don't get the case extradited to my home, it remains at the scene, doesn't it? If I am arrested for hollow point bullets in NJ, can I expect my homestate consulate to work to have me tried in the county of my residence? Murder is already illegal, and at the time punishable by death (I imagine Texas was even more diligent in executions at that time) so the means to justice were already sufficient; why the special 'rules for me, not for thee?' Becuz, govermint wanted the revenge for themselves (and one has to wonder if the investigation might have been more efficient if treated as an ordinary crime, as opposed to something warranting the full resources of a nation)

There is no excuse for looting and rioting, and I sympathize with those who have to balance a response with the freedom to assemble and protest. But it seems to me that this is still a scenario that requires us to at least question authority. Tactics and equipment that we developed for Iraq and Afghanistan are at play now in the United States. That includes the use of drones, they just aren't armed- yet.
Click to expand...
If local authorities were limited with an understanding that the NG can, and should be called in when things get beyond the police mission of routine maintenance and enforcement of laws, they would have no need to super-size their kit, and the NG would implement a brief, swift crackdown on openly violent actors before relinquishing command, limiting the corrosive effect of harsh military enforcement on the populace. Instead, we have police slowly ramp up the harsh enforcement in kind with the looters, and retain their gear/tactics/mindset at reduced but ever-present levels thereafter.

1-Drones for observation, because officers can't be everywhere, are expensive, and want to go home safe
2-Automated drones for surveillance, because officers can't be everywhere, are expensive, and want to go home safe
3-Strategic non-lethal drones for ingress and building clearning, because officers can't do every job, are expensive, and want to go home safe
4-Tactical sniping platforms for hostage/siege situations, because officers aren't bulletproof, are expensive, and want to go home safe
5-Assisted sniping platforms, because police are not perfect shots, perfect shots are expensive to train, and officers want to go home safe
6-Automated enforcement drones, because officers are expensive to train, can't be expected to know the multitude of laws on the books, are not invulnerable, and want to go home safe
7-Officers finally get to go home safe, for good.

Part of me wonders how the whole begging for budget increases dynamic is going to change when police officers are barely involved in day-to-day enforcement. Will the choice finally be based on whether citizens desire stronger and stronger enforcement (as opposed to a guilt trip), officials' lies about a fictitious crime wave (see: now), or an institutionally-fostered psychological tendency toward dependence and helplessness that leaves the populace perpetually terrified of nameless evils requiring ever more resources to combat? Or will we have simply voted to give funding/allocating authority to computers by then? I for one, welcome our new Killbot overlords; they can't possibly do a worse job than any other system that's been tried ;)

TCB
 
McVeigh may have been motivated, but he sure wasn't part of an individual effort. Or one that took place in a simple attempt to get a free tv or in a quick and emotional response. He worked and planned his response, with some help. Isn't an excessive reaction bound to create more of the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top