What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (11 Viewers)

Pardon me if I don't discount the testimony of the best friend of the deceased. A good buddy of mine was driving through an area of Memphis that is predominantly black when he was broadsided by a black woman who ran a red light. He got out of the car unharmed (Thankfully) and was looking around for witnesses, and nobody appeared to be around (it was about 1am).

However, once the police were on the scene, dozens of "witnesses" had come out of the woodwork claiming my friend was the one who ran the red light and they all "saw it clear as day". Why? A chance to stick it to a white boy. This crap happens a lot in neighborhoods like this, and I've got no doubt we're seeing some of that same effect in formal police statements.
Racism like this is sickening to hear about.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
27 police officers have been killed by gun fire so far this year. Another 7 when intentionally struck by a vehicle and 1 by assault.
That is your definition of non lethal threats?

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
27 police officers have been killed by gun fire so far this year. Another 7 when intentionally struck by a vehicle and 1 by assault.
:shrug: how many civilians have been killed by gun fire, or hit by a car? Give everyone the right to protect themselves from perceived threats.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
27 police officers have been killed by gun fire so far this year. Another 7 when intentionally struck by a vehicle and 1 by assault.
That is your definition of non lethal threats?
More of an answer as to whether or not it's a good idea to let patrol officers carry weapons.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.
Define "helped in this case"

 
I'm actually impressed with the shooting. Four hits in the right arm is impressive shooting
He should probably adjust his sights and maybe visit the shooting range a few times before they return him to active duty.
Four times in the leg would probably have been more helpful.
Don't cops just aim center mass? This wasn't Hollywood.
He pulls to the right left, then

ETA: The other 'right' :bag:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can we stop referring to this as a "robbery," as if he pistol-whipped the cashier and emptied out the register? The guy apparently stole some cigars. That's more akin to shoplifting. Yeah, I understand he shoved the cashier, but come on.
I know that you took a i-beating for the above post so I wanted to show that you're not alone with that viewpoint:

"“First of all, if this is the young man, y’all quit trying to exaggerate,” the Harlem civil rights activist said [sharpton]. “That was shoplifting, not robbery. … Robbery, you break in, stick something up. Shoplifting, you take some cigars. It’s wrong if he did it, but call it what it is.” (link)
Good ally to have in the perception game

 
I'm actually impressed with the shooting. Four hits in the right arm is impressive shooting
He should probably adjust his sights and maybe visit the shooting range a few times before they return him to active duty.
Four times in the leg would probably have been more helpful.
Don't cops just aim center mass? This wasn't Hollywood.
I always thought it was two to the chest and one to the head.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.
Define "helped in this case"
If we play the events out that we are assuming that the police officer was preventing with gunfire, do you not think that this kid would have beat the cop severely, maybe even to death? The kid was 6'4" and 250+. You think the cop should have holstered his gun and try to fight this kid? Really?

 
Now I'm confused...again. The autopsy shows he was shot from the front. It doesn't make clear how far away he was.

this is starting to remind me so much of the Zimmerman story. Witnesses with conflicting accounts. and once again opinion seems divided among partisan lines, with many conservatives believing the shooting was justified, and many liberals sure it was murder.

I have a feeling that, just like in Zimmerman, we will probably never know what really happened.
no traces of gunpowder rules out close range. the guy charged the police and got lit up
To present a contrarian viewpoint:

Not necessarily. If he was wearing clothes (presumably the case), you're much more likely to have gunpowder on the clothing than the skin itself unless you're shot within ~12" you're unlikely to see enough residue blow through clothing to the skin. Residue itself is GENERALLY expected to be on the primary surface out to a distance of 3-5 feet.

So, even if no residue is found on the clothing, it simply means the kid was (most likely) beyond arms reach. Considering the average man can close the distances discussed here (~30ft or 10yds) in a second or two, it's not completely unrealistic for an officer to identify a 6'4" 300+lb man charging him at that distance to be a threat worthy of shooting, IMO. It's also silly to think that a man that size would be stopped by one or two torso shots ... anyone thinking that watches too many movies.

If the kid was indeed charging the officer (as the shots to the front of the torso, and the witness testimony, suggest), it's not unrealistic to expect multiple shots out of an officer who presumably is aware that: 1) 1 or 2 shots of a 9mm or 40cal handgun are unlikely to stop a man of that size unless perfectly placed (unrealistic to expect in this scenario) and 2) that man would be on top of him (and likely be able to easily overpower him) within a second or two.

That said... waiting on forensics before passing final judgement would likely be prudent.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.
Define "helped in this case"
If we play the events out that we are assuming that the police officer was preventing with gunfire, do you not think that this kid would have beat the cop severely, maybe even to death? The kid was 6'4" and 250+. You think the cop should have holstered his gun and try to fight this kid? Really?
Depends. Did the cop have other options like mace or taser available? Also there are reports of other cops on the scene, so you wouldn't have been attempting to arrest Brown alone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.

 
Pardon me if I don't discount the testimony of the best friend of the deceased. A good buddy of mine was driving through an area of Memphis that is predominantly black when he was broadsided by a black woman who ran a red light. He got out of the car unharmed (Thankfully) and was looking around for witnesses, and nobody appeared to be around (it was about 1am).

However, once the police were on the scene, dozens of "witnesses" had come out of the woodwork claiming my friend was the one who ran the red light and they all "saw it clear as day". Why? A chance to stick it to a white boy. This crap happens a lot in neighborhoods like this, and I've got no doubt we're seeing some of that same effect in formal police statements.
Racism like this is sickening to hear about.
It sucks in any direction... Just saying that I've seen damn near firsthand "testiimony" to police being corrupted by racial bias. It's likely prudent to keep that in mind when considering any witness testimony at face value.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.
Define "helped in this case"
If we play the events out that we are assuming that the police officer was preventing with gunfire, do you not think that this kid would have beat the cop severely, maybe even to death? The kid was 6'4" and 250+. You think the cop should have holstered his gun and try to fight this kid? Really?
And black. Don't forget black.

But the answer to your question depends on what alternatives were available. It seems to me, that in a civilized society, we should have the means to deal with non-lethal threats beyond simply shooting suspects by aiming at center mass.

 
One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.

What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?

 
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.
It depends on who is doing the shooting or beating. Last year in Detroit a black cop killed an unarmed black guy and the people who lived around there were cheering because they said they guy who was killed was bad news. No looting, no nothing.There was only a small blurb in the news about, no national news at all. Pretty sure the cop did not even get time off.

Before that there was a live chase in Detroit that was captured by a helicopter, The black perp finally crashed and fled his vehicle with 5-6 black cops in pursuit on foot. When the caught him they beat the chit out of him Rodney King style...the last 2 guys came in and were stomping his head. This was all on film from the news copter. That night it was about a 30 second story on the local news and then gone forever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pardon me if I don't discount the testimony of the best friend of the deceased. A good buddy of mine was driving through an area of Memphis that is predominantly black when he was broadsided by a black woman who ran a red light. He got out of the car unharmed (Thankfully) and was looking around for witnesses, and nobody appeared to be around (it was about 1am).

However, once the police were on the scene, dozens of "witnesses" had come out of the woodwork claiming my friend was the one who ran the red light and they all "saw it clear as day". Why? A chance to stick it to a white boy. This crap happens a lot in neighborhoods like this, and I've got no doubt we're seeing some of that same effect in formal police statements.
Racism like this is sickening to hear about.
It sucks in any direction... Just saying that I've seen damn near firsthand "testiimony" to police being corrupted by racial bias. It's likely prudent to keep that in mind when considering any witness testimony at face value.
I agree. It appears as if the stories by several witnesses in this Ferguson were totally fabricated, and I can't say I am the least bit surprised.

 
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.
Some commentary on "lethal force" by lawofficer.com

Two takeaways:

• The suspect must be a lethal threat or reasonably perceived as one.

An individual does NOT need to be armed to be reasonably considered a lethal threat. This is taught in self defense firearm classes as well as LEO training. In personal self defense cases they look for Capacity and Intent to do lethal harm. I can't speak to the baseline for LEO.

• A minimum number of officers fire a minimum number of rounds.

Minimum number of rounds is highly subjective. In the heat of the moment, its tough to expect an officer to fire, wait to assess the threat, fire again, etc. I think it's reasonable to expect any shooting to be done in bursts...particularly if the threat is immediate. In this case the officer emptied about 1/3 to half of his magazine into the suspect. IF it turns out the suspect was charging him, I'm not sure thats easy to prove as excessive against a man of this size.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.
Define "helped in this case"
If we play the events out that we are assuming that the police officer was preventing with gunfire, do you not think that this kid would have beat the cop severely, maybe even to death? The kid was 6'4" and 250+. You think the cop should have holstered his gun and try to fight this kid? Really?
And black. Don't forget black.

But the answer to your question depends on what alternatives were available. It seems to me, that in a civilized society, we should have the means to deal with non-lethal threats beyond simply shooting suspects by aiming at center mass.
Well, there are tazers, but people don't seem to much care for those either. Maybe you should start working on phasers that have a stun setting.

 
One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I knew that he was making PCP from Skittles!

 
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.
Some commentary on "lethal force" by lawofficer.com

Two takeaways:

• The suspect must be a lethal threat or reasonably perceived as one.

An individual does NOT need to be armed to be reasonably considered a lethal threat. This is taught in self defense firearm classes as well as LEO training. In personal self defense cases they look for Capacity and Intent to do lethal harm. I can't speak to the baseline for LEO.

• A minimum number of officers fire a minimum number of rounds.

Minimum number of rounds is highly subjective. In the heat of the moment, its tough to expect an officer to fire, wait to assess the threat, fire again, etc. I think it's reasonable to expect any shooting to be done in bursts...particularly if the threat is immediate. In this case the officer emptied about 1/3 to half of his magazine into the suspect. IF it turns out the suspect was charging him, I'm not sure thats easy to prove as excessive against a man of this size.
Technically we do not know how many shots were fired. We know that 6 shots hit.

 
With the Brown video from the store where he was aggressive towards the clerk and now this new information as to where he actually wasn't shot in the back at all maybe he did the exact same thing here to the officer?

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
I guess he didn't have a nightstick or taser either.

 
Thanks Icon.

I know you carry a gun as well. Are you as a private citizen also legally entitled to fire your gun if you believe there is a lethal threat to yourself? Or if there is a lethal threat to someone else?

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
No, the cop should just allow the charging 6' 4" 290 lb to beat the snot out of him.

 
Well, there are tazers, but people don't seem to much care for those either. Maybe you should start working on phasers that have a stun setting.
Not all police departments/officers are issued tasers. I had this discussion with a good buddy who's an MPD officer a month ago. He was not issued a taser. No idea if the officers in Ferguson are, but I am unsure of the effectiveness of one against a man of Brown's size.

 
I guess he didn't have a nightstick or taser either.
:lol: at expecting an officer to use a nightstick to defend himself against a 6'4' 300lb man.

IF it proves out that he charged the officer (currently supported by autopsy and eye witness testimony), then the officer has every right to use any force at his disposal he deems necessary to defend himself. If you elect to charge an officer, the outcome is on you.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Maybe - but don't cops in England get away without carrying a weapon?

Maybe instead of carrying a weapon, we teach/train differently on how to deal with this situations.

 
Thanks Icon.

I know you carry a gun as well. Are you as a private citizen also legally entitled to fire your gun if you believe there is a lethal threat to yourself? Or if there is a lethal threat to someone else?
I believe you are Legally protected in the defense of others, however in the classes I have taken, they go to great lengths to discourage getting involved in any cases that you are not immediately a party in.

 
I guess he didn't have a nightstick or taser either.
:lol: at expecting an officer to use a nightstick to defend himself against a 6'4' 300lb man.
I don't know. I seem to recall some officers using nightsticks to defend themselves against a sizeable 6'3 black man in LA a while back. Trying to remember how that one turned out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Icon.

I know you carry a gun as well. Are you as a private citizen also legally entitled to fire your gun if you believe there is a lethal threat to yourself? Or if there is a lethal threat to someone else?
Not icon and I really don't care about specifics in law, but common sense tells me if I'm armed, and you're trying to whip my ###, you're better off dead than me getting my ### whipped and you taking my weapon away from me. Don't start fights with armed people, especially cops.

 
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.
If you're asking for help from FFA police officers on when it's appropriate to shoot because you're unfamiliar with police protocol and procedures, then how can you say for sure that the police bungled what happened after the shooting?

FYI, I don't know proper police procedure either, but it seems odd to start a post conceding lack of police protocol knowledge and then shortly thereafter posting confidently that the police bungled the case when they may have been following protocol which both of us are unfamilair with.

I agree with you, though, firsthand police officer insight would be informative.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Maybe - but don't cops in England get away without carrying a weapon?

Maybe instead of carrying a weapon, we teach/train differently on how to deal with this situations.
They carry weapons. Just not firearms.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Maybe - but don't cops in England get away without carrying a weapon?

Maybe instead of carrying a weapon, we teach/train differently on how to deal with this situations.
:fishing:

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Maybe - but don't cops in England get away without carrying a weapon?

Maybe instead of carrying a weapon, we teach/train differently on how to deal with this situations.
This has really got to stop.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Maybe - but don't cops in England get away without carrying a weapon?

Maybe instead of carrying a weapon, we teach/train differently on how to deal with this situations.
There are armed cops in England. IIRC most are not armed and don't carry tasers either

 
Would you armchair CSI **** Tracys stop. Just stop. This has surpassed the speculation that the guy who TS hit was trying to hop a ride on the front wing of the car.

 
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.
Interesting take. Nobody to blame for an unjustified shooting and post-incident bungling (to put it mildly- I'd call it purposeful misleading of the public and the press by those sworn to serve them, but hey, tomato/tomahto)?

See, I'd blame the people who made mistakes and did the "bungling". But I guess that's just me, with my silly ideas about accountability.

 
I thought I had read somewhere that the officer was medically treated as well.

So I think a puzzle is coming together here.

Brown robs store with friend.

Brown and friend walking down the middle of the road are met by the officer who just wants to contact them to get out of the road because they have already stated the officer didn't know about the robbery.

Brown thinks he is getting pinched for the robbery struggles with the cop. **now we need more details here** but if Brown assaulted the officer and he ultimately needed medical attention, we now have the substantiation for the fear of officer safety.

Brown and friend run. Officer chases. Brown turns and comes at officer (this according to the audio from a cell phone later filming the body). Officer unloads on the kid. The trajectories of the bullets will be important. However, the idea the kid had has hands in the air while being shot seems to be rapidly falling apart.

As to why EMS wasn't called, that is another interesting question.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.
Define "helped in this case"
If we play the events out that we are assuming that the police officer was preventing with gunfire, do you not think that this kid would have beat the cop severely, maybe even to death? The kid was 6'4" and 250+. You think the cop should have holstered his gun and try to fight this kid? Really?
And black. Don't forget black.

But the answer to your question depends on what alternatives were available. It seems to me, that in a civilized society, we should have the means to deal with non-lethal threats beyond simply shooting suspects by aiming at center mass.
In a civilized society people respect the rule of law and those that society has chosen to enforce those laws. Civilized people respect society and those around them by respecting others persons and property. Respect for those that are carrying out the law is an integral part of a civilized society. Those that keep choosing to step out of civilized society and attack those that society has designated to protect civilized life are a threat to society as a whole. They have indicated their choice to no longer live as a civilized individual.

Police officers often have a very small window in which to make judgement calls. Sometimes they are so wrong as to be criminal IMO (like the cops that killed a 95 year old WWII vet swinging his cane around in a nursing home). In a case where a 6'4" 265 pound young man has already tried to steal the officer's weapon and then is willing to rush the officer, IMO, shooting and killing him is justified. A person that large is certainly capable of beating someone to death. And charging someone with a gun is pretty clear intent that they are trying to get to that person in order to kill them.

I mean, this guy ended up dead because he was willing to fight against a simple request not to walk down the middle of the road. If had simply fallen into line with a simple request to follow society's desire for orderly traffic, he would be alive today. But he chose to talk back, fight that request, and then possibly tried to fight and kill a police officer. If that version of the story ends up being the correct one, then I see no reason to put any blame on the officer.

 
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.
Interesting take. Nobody to blame for an unjustified shooting and post-incident bungling (to put it mildly- I'd call it purposeful misleading of the public and the press by those sworn to serve them, but hey, tomato/tomahto)?

See, I'd blame the people who made mistakes and did the "bungling". But I guess that's just me, with my silly ideas about accountability.
if you want to regard errors with the same moral outrage as you would deliberate intent, that's up to you. Bit I wouldn't do it.
 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Seriously. Has to be the worst argument in a thread full of bad arguments. Why the hang up on "non-lethal"? The cop did have a gun, mike brown knew it, and it appears he still charged at him. That's a lethal situation. If you disagree, you should at least recognize it would turn lethal as soon as they were both wrestling with a gun involved.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.
Define "helped in this case"
If we play the events out that we are assuming that the police officer was preventing with gunfire, do you not think that this kid would have beat the cop severely, maybe even to death? The kid was 6'4" and 250+. You think the cop should have holstered his gun and try to fight this kid? Really?
And black. Don't forget black.

But the answer to your question depends on what alternatives were available. It seems to me, that in a civilized society, we should have the means to deal with non-lethal threats beyond simply shooting suspects by aiming at center mass.
A 6-5 250lb male is a lethal threat. When police do try to use non-lethals they get highly criticized too. Simple devices like acoustic hailers are spun up as sound cannons and their effects are highly exaggerated. In many cases using tear gas or teasers are often spun as torture or inhumane. The police are in a can't win situation.

 
Are there any police officers in the FFA? I wish we had someone who could explain to us when it is or isn't OK to shoot in these situations.

But anyhow, here are my opinions, based on what we know, as of this morning. I am betting:

1. The shooting, whether justified or not, was based on factors specific to the situation, and not on racism.

2. If the shooting was unjustified, it was due to mistakes made by the officer and not deliberate intent to do so.

3. The police in general bungled what happened after the shooting, and in so doing created an atmosphere which confirmed suspicion among black residents that deliberate harm of a racial nature was done. But this bungling was just that; nothing deliberate.

In short as so often in these type of situations, nobody may be to blame. People in authority make mistakes; others believe those mistakes to be deliberate and naturally get angry; this causes the authorities to make more mistakes; and that causes some people to get angrier still. Sad rule of life.
Interesting take. Nobody to blame for an unjustified shooting and post-incident bungling (to put it mildly- I'd call it purposeful misleading of the public and the press by those sworn to serve them, but hey, tomato/tomahto)?

See, I'd blame the people who made mistakes and did the "bungling". But I guess that's just me, with my silly ideas about accountability.
You're talking in general terms here and not about this specific situation, right?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top