It is looking more and more like Darren Wilson acted as many thought and the shooting was justified. Shots were fired inside the vehicle. Browns blood found in vehicle, on the gun and on Wilsons clothing from the shots. Witness testimony also noted struggle and also contradicts others that his arms were not up. Seems Brown was coming or at least staggering forward from about 25 feet.
This is going pretty much exactly as it appeared and noted from the beginning despite the trolling attempts here and elsewhere to make it something else. Brown attacked the police officer, they struggled , shots were fired, he ran. He turned and faced the officer and did not surrender. The officer did what was his duty and in his defense and really the people of Fergusons defense and shot Brown down.
Now we should get some riots and more ridiculousness. As I noted from the beginning, all this has done is make racists look right and those supporting this case look dumb but they won't acknowledge it so racism wins...congrats....Now we should get some riots and looting in support of a thug who would otherwise be in jail.
Wash Post Link - (
New Window )
If they had not put the state police in charge I really think it would have evolved into running street battles and a full scale riot. Things like that gradually worsened but I take it as the media the publicity brought in those intending to do harm which likely were not in majority Ferguson people.
I read it that way. The other poster above I read his statements as the peoples of Ferguson as just being a bad lot. I don't agree with that.
Some of course are as in all places. I think the majority were being treated badly and this was the straw the broke the camels back. Really stat wise Ferguson had not had that many DBPO. This was only a final thing in a list of grievances. I don't doubt those grievances were real ones. I mention the racial disparity of the police force as that is most obvious but it appears they were running a stop and harass type of place. like I mention…a militarized police force. I mean arresting a state senator….something is wrong there.
I don't think the police are above criticism and some things were done wrong by police but I think the blame can be passed around to about everyone including journalists, senators (nasheed) and protesters.
As for your militarized police bs...what do the police have that they didn't need? Armored vehicles? Yeah those have saved lives across the country and are not a threat to the public in any way. ARs ? Anyone can buy an AR
The equipment leads to a attitude of military as in they are them and we are us. So the acquiring of some equipment is perhaps handy for a dept to have but it leads to a atmosphere of military. Which is not what you want your PD to have. Military even the military has PO's it is a different thing than the military.
And how often do depts use that stuff…about never. Very rarely is it used in swat…it just is not practical.
Large large cities could justify it others they never use it.
You want to hold your opinion and call all I say BS….feel free but I don't think you will be accomplishing much.
I am familiar with this as it is a issue and clearly one present in America. The question is not that it is but do we want to go that way?
You say yes, I guess you do but to say it is BS and doesn't exist….I mean just look around. They didn't used to have these type vehicles and equipment and depts did have different training methodologies.
Did policing get a real more dangerous since 2000 or is it a response to some other threat? I take it as that. Really we are about the same DOPO as it has been in the past. A bit up or down year by year but really nothing justifies all this stuff.
To say we are not going in that direction with equipment and training…I don't see that as a defendable point. Its obvious we are. I know from discussions of the training others know by just looking around at the equipment changes in the last 15 years.
Does the threat really justify that move, is there a new larger threat…perhaps you think there is and that is defendable and debatable.
I think it is wrong to have one and will cause as many problems as it serves and Ferguson shows that a bit. But that is only my opinion.
Again to say it is not and has not happened….I don't know what to say as it obviously has.
The question for debate as I read it is should we or should we not. Good arguments can be made on both sides.
This is not to rehash the 60's but look at it…cops would beat the F out of you with clubs but not be carrying weapons of the sort they are now.
Which was better…by my take…..I'd take clubs any day and time.
Did mass shootings actually occur in Ferguson no. But I could see that if things were let to continue with their Police in charge I could see that happening.
Years ago no that would never happen. Hoses clubs those sort of things were used and threatened, not these type things.
Things have changed some would say for the better more modern and efficient I say not. But each is entitled to their opinion neither is BS.
But it is a choice to make we have to make. Clearly it is going that way…do we want it?
But if your point was that only major US cities should have Humvees or comparable vehicles, a reasonable point perhaps, why wouldn't St. Louis qualify?
I am not military or police, but I imagine training for riot response and active combat are some of the hardest things to simulate and get the responders prepared.
it's not like there are a lot of experienced riot responders in Boston (or Ferguson). I'm not taking sides or excusing, just offering up an example that removes race, removes motive, and hate, and just shows the human side of these kinds of events even if for very different reasons.
But this from the WSJ..just one article of a thousand or so out there….
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) singled out a one-man police department in Michigan that she said had received 13 assault weapons. Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) criticized the 14,000 bayonets the Pentagon distributed to local law enforcement across the country for reasons he said he couldn't fathom.
"Giving military-grade weapons to every police force and every officer comes with costs," Ms. McCaskill said. "Officers dressed in military fatigues will not be viewed as partners in any community."
Billions of dollars of excess military equipment and funding to buy other gear has flown to local police departments over the past two decades. At first, Congress approved such programs as a way to help departments outgunned by drug gangs. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the flow increased as lawmakers spent more money to help police prevent terrorism."
Bayonetts ?? I didn't really scratch the surface on this thing.. I bet with a look see I could find about a thousand things which are absurd.
The problem is not so much in the equipment but the message it sends. Even the color of a police car is chosen for reasons of the psychological, one color means things unconsciously to us another doesn't. Not to mention the effect on your local dept perception if it is issued bayonets…..??? Suppose that becomes known of.
But those are police things..bayonets military no doubt about it.
I'm going to peruse this stuff to see how absurd it has gotten just for fun……
I'm not having to look very far nor deep to see which way it has gone. The training as I mentioned it is the same..it is leaning military. I could look up the models and all that the same as the equipment though it would be a bit more difficult.
Do we want that …I don't but maybe you do. That you do is not BS it can be argued for and is a valid position. not one I agree with but it is as valid as mine. I know that.
But this from the WSJ..just one article of a thousand or so out there….
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) singled out a one-man police department in Michigan that she said had received 13 assault weapons. Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) criticized the 14,000 bayonets the Pentagon distributed to local law enforcement across the country for reasons he said he couldn't fathom.
"Giving military-grade weapons to every police force and every officer comes with costs," Ms. McCaskill said. "Officers dressed in military fatigues will not be viewed as partners in any community."
Billions of dollars of excess military equipment and funding to buy other gear has flown to local police departments over the past two decades. At first, Congress approved such programs as a way to help departments outgunned by drug gangs. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the flow increased as lawmakers spent more money to help police prevent terrorism."
Bayonetts ?? I didn't really scratch the surface on this thing.. I bet with a look see I could find about a thousand things which are absurd.
The problem is not so much in the equipment but the message it sends. Even the color of a police car is chosen for reasons of the psychological, one color means things unconsciously to us another doesn't. Not to mention the effect on your local dept perception if it is issued bayonets…..??? Suppose that becomes known of.
WTF is an "Assault Weapon?" It's a BS made up term. Anyone in the United States can buy the same "Assault weapons" given to these small town police departments.
Bayonets...I'm not sure why anyone has them but it's quite possible departments use them for honor guards or something. Other than that I'd say they are useless and shouldn't have been given out. With that said, any stories of police departments killing people with bayonets? Or even using them?
What are these military grade weapons? They're no different than anything anyone in the US can buy on their own. If they got the money, they can buy an armored truck, an AR, ...
Military fatigues? Police departments use them for special units (swat teams) because they're cheaper and easy to replace. Many rural areas they come in handy too. Pretty stupid to complain about since your average police officer isn't wearing them out on patrol.
Related: The Pentagon Equipped Ferguson’s Police Dept.
Since Congress first approved the 1033 program in 1990, local police have received more than $5.1 billion in military-grade property – from surplus desks to Mine Resistant Ambush P (MRAPS), M-16s, and Kevlar body armor. In 2013 alone, more than $449 million in military equipment was transferred; the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and FEMA paid for it through grants appropriated by Congress.
Although DOD officials say Ferguson police did not use any of its military-grade tactical equipment (which is still under review in a separate federal investigation), the war zone-like images that came out of Ferguson sparked new concerns.
“There is no role for the federal government in state and local police forces in our country,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said Tuesday. The longtime deficit hawk pointed out that a tiny police department in his home state had received two MRAPs from the Pentagon though it only has one full time police officer.
- See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/09/10/40-Percent-Used-Military-Equipment-Given-Police-Brand-New#sthash.lLYhE1VE.dpuf
Tom Coburn is about the most conservative senator to be found anywhere…
He sees it as a waste of money, which it is to my opinion.
But yeah we can by the reaches of our imagination justify a lot of this….mostly I don't think so but you may and do I guess.
So we differ.
It's odd that these things are brought up now because of Ferguson though. In a year where police officers are being murdered almost every day. Police deaths by gunfire have increased 52% so far this year (38 police officers have been murdered by guns, 7 by vehicular assault and 1 by assault).
Here from a trade magazine is a quote from 2013 before all this stuff happened in Ferguson. But I am not making this stuff up or pulling it out of my A.
This mag is directed at career officers….
Here is the quote I included it as it references training in the context I mentioned it. Keep in mind this is 2013 way before Ferguson….
Stress training in police academies, and its warrior-like orientation that tends to create an “us versus them” mind set in rookie officers, has the potential of creating barriers between the police and the community. Even when community policing is part of a stress academy curriculum, it has been shown that the stress training creates obstacles to the kind of police-citizen relationships necessary to operationalize community policing.6
Police chiefs and sheriffs may want to ask themselves—if after hiring officers in the spirit of adventure, who have been exposed to action oriented police dramas since their youth, and sending them to an academy patterned after a military boot camp, then dressing them in black battle dress uniforms and turning them loose in a subculture steeped in an “us versus them” outlook toward those they serve and protect, while prosecuting the war on crime, war on drugs, and now a war on terrorism—is there any realistic hope of institutionalizing community policing as an operational philosophy?
Karl Bickel
Senior Policy Analyst
The COPS Office
Here is another excerpt from another article earlier in 2013.
He talks about the model which is what I have been talking about the different training models…..
…"Police recruit training is generally found to be based on one of two models—stress or non-stress——with a range of variants drawing from both models. Stress training is modeled after a military boot camp, characterized by paramilitary drills, daily inspections, intense physical demands, public discipline, withholding privileges, and immediate reaction to infractions. Non-stress recruit training is associated with a more relaxed academic or collegiate atmosphere, characterized by emphasis on academic achievement, a relaxed instructor/trainee relationship, and administrative disciplinary procedures.1
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report on State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies (BJS Report), the majority of police recruits receive their training in academies with a stress-based military orientation. 2 This begs the question; is this military model—designed to prepare young recruits for combat—the appropriate mechanism for teaching our police trainees how to garner community trust and partner with citizens to solve crime and public order problems? …
We are trending military in equipment and in training.Do we want that? That is the question not is it occurring. He is the expert so to speak in the field.
2000
162
2001
241
2002
157
2003
150
2004
165
2005
163
2006
156
2007
191
2008
147
2009
125
1914
116
2010
161
1915
130
2011
171
1916
154
2012
122
1917
165
2013
100
I left some of the real old stats in there for comparison. Conclusion. deaths of police officers in the line of duty have largely not changed over the years. Sometime way up sometimes way down but usually in the same range, actually for quite a long time. 1917…165 2013…100.
Google it yourself the organization is tasked with these type stat generation.
So why the militarization?
it is up to the norm 2013 was really a aberration statistically. A low aberration.
I can hear it now the politicians who favor this they are saying….we are so much higher than last year how can we not do this?
so one cannot win.
But no…the stats go up and down but really stay about the same no real trends obvious. Overall considering population increases…it is way way safer to be a PO than in say 1917 or so.
But in the last 50 years or so…about the same up and down from year to year always in the same overall range.
But exactly on point to Ferguson…it has as lot to do with why the community reacted as it did . Success or failure of community policing it could be called.
So a class that starts with say 40 will graduate 20 or less.
The other model the academic model will hire 20 use extensive screening background, even extensive use of mock scenarios/oral board type things, to weed those who are unqualified but as consequence they then graduate maybe 18 or the 20. Or even 20 of the 20.
So we are tending the military model as I mention. With the new equipment being mostly military and the culture being military it leaves that perception with the people they serve, not as a police dept to help them but a military force to control them. So peoples tend to get bothered by that not immediately but after it goes on for 10 or 20 years.
Which brings me back to my earlier point. England and the redcoats the soldiers were used to colonialize and to put down other peoples. So the people in England had a aversion to redcoats as that would put them in the category as being just another colony with people to be surpressed. So a decision was made to have the police wear blue. Little things mean a lot to perception. Having our police wear black riot gear helmets and all the rest they are safer but the community itself looks at that as being a occupying force not a police force, a military.
I think it is a big big mistake personally. The result is when a thing happens regardless of that thing or its independent merit it escalates, which is what happened in Ferguson. It is not so much this one killing, likely this officer is innocent of murder. but the past that comes back to haunt.
I read the amnesty international report on this just yesterday. The local police were completely out of control. They for just one, had the amnesty international group, who were clearly marked and are pretty easy to spot(not threatening by appearance at all are those people) at one time at the point of a gun lie on the ground. I mean really…amnesty international…geese louise what were they thinking. To mention just one the list goes on and on. 19 journalists arrested, sure one or two may have been out of line but 19?
A local council person trying to mediate between the crowd and the police…they shot him in the stomach with a rubber bullet…..out of control they clearly were. 7 pages was the report some of it biased to the left, but the incidents you just can not say they are made up. I am mentioning only a few in there.
and I think the whole militarization thing is oversold. the major proponent's argument is that because they receive military equipment - it will transform police agencies into small armies. but, that ignores the fact that exponentially more resources were provided to agencies based on community policing grants. and most of that military gear never gets used in the day to day delivery of police services. you report a burglary - cop is probably more likely to show up in a police car as opposed to a tank.
policing has come a long ways and has a long way to go, but, these high profile incidents - well, often the responses to them go off track.
the point the militarization guru makes fairly well is the use of SWAT teams/raids to execute drug warrants. lot of force, lot can go wrong - what's the reward and does it justify the risk. too often - no. That's the important point, IMO, not whether some agency got an armored vehicle they may use once or twice a year for transport purposes.
re: Ferguson - well, they were overwhelmed, unprepared, etc. and the influx of "tourists" certainly didn't help matters. I'd be interested in reading the civil rights investigation report. not re: the shooting so much, but the agency policies and practices.
The state academy was the inverse for years and years I am not current on them now however.
That state has a particular to the wording of its use of force law which will likely protect this officer from any murder charge. Killing is allowed by a PO without necessary protection from a immediate mortal danger which is present in most state wordings. The way it is worded is more important to my opinion than 90% of the whys and wherefores. Essentially to my read if you know of a felon or person committing a felon lethal force is a option to stopping him even if he poses no immediate threat.
Amnesty is requesting they change it.
I suggest if you have the time to read the amnesty report. It is quite a good read. Not the digestions by the media but the report on their web site.
That is usually a felony offense.
Another had a person self barricaded in a house, about a thousand of that per year swat incident really pretty common and typically easily handled…
this other Bum F ARiz place, they sent a hum vee up the front lawn…know why…because they had one.
I disagree in that I think it is clearly out of control in these small places. They don't have any training nevertheless to use the stuff. Hurricane Sandy places like that Hum Vee's came in real handy, Bum F utah…..not so much.
I will read that amnesty report - the issue of necessity is huge ad should be a part of any df policy.
re: police officer line of duty deaths -for a while the leading cause was auto accidents. that and liability for pursuits were the major catalysts for the trend towards restricting police pursuits.
in addition to the df policy, the training is an important piece. police generally don't get enough training and the right types of training.
... 59 60 54 70 41 50 60 73 50 31 548..total
Thought that may interest you as well bc
It comes down to the cop's inabiltiy to control a threat without lethal force. Probably due to poor training and lack of community relations.
It comes down to the cop's inabiltiy to control a threat without lethal force. Probably due to poor training and lack of community relations.
Or maybe due to the kid being 300 pounds. "Probably" should not presume to know things you clearly know next to nothing about.
You're the poster-child for jumping to conclusions. No matter what your training or your community relations, if Brown was in fact a 300 pound man acting aggressively, short of a taser (which some units don't use for reasons related to community relations) or pepper spray - maybe - or being Anderson Silva "controlling" someone his size is something that seems a lot easier to do in the comfort of your computer chair than it does on the ground.
What is relevant is this….
A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
That is the Missouri law on police use of deadly force. It is quite unconstitutional as a similar law was struck down in the mid 80's. This is essentially a fleeing felon law which was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. It has not been changed in Missouri to reflect that…
So this officer is clearly innocent of murder. The guy committed a felon when he pushed the officer, that is a felony offense to assault with intent to harm a police officer in the pursuance of his duties….
So felony established he was within the states constitution to use deadly force to stop him…it is right there above the rational for doing so.
Section 2A
This law is unconstitutional but you can't fault the cop for that.
Conversely, 300 lbers can be killed because officers believe it is necessary to effect arrest. But using deadly force on an unarmed 98 lb weakling would lead to charges, because no one would accept that a cop believes that the use of deadly force is necessay to arrest the kid.
A defense attorney of that cop all he really has to do if the cop is charged with murder….read that statute to the jury.
Clearly that cop was within the perameters of that stature. ONce the guy fights with him it is a felony. Taken to a wrong extent then(what the law is unconstitutional) if a cop wants to kill someone all he has to do is get into first a fight with him.
But it is what it is….. a law presently in that state.
This law is unconstitutional but you can't fault the cop for that.
Sure, if you believe that right and wrong begin and end with the law.
If you don't, you absolutely can fault the cop, albeit not legally.
He sucks as a cop no doubt about it, should not be one.
But guilty of murder…no not at all in this state.
State sucks as well for having that on the books 25 years after it has been outlawed.
In civil court likely the state is named as a defendant as well. Someone in that state is not doing their job. That statute should have been removed 25 years ago.
When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest
Combined with section A under this
If the guy is big and you expect he may beat you down or quick in that he may run away from you….you may use deadly force.
So the onus in this specific would be on the prosecutors to show that this 300 pound guy could not reasonably be believed to be able to beat down the officer…..good luck with that I would say.
ron in new mexico at 12% (started a day later than anyone else)
vs
the original michael brown thread
Sonic Youth at 12% of the posts there (but he wins on volume 227 posts)
The winner?
PA Giant fan
Collect your prize! a night in Beez's basement
On the Missouri law despite it still being present I would say it is likely that any police depts training would reflect the 1985 court ruling. So this officer would likely have violated that. the ruling was so well known in law enforcement. Why Missouri did not change theirs as they were one of the states directly affected or changed it to what is present now which is the same fleeing felon rule…is beyond me.
Nevertheless it will be a point for the officers potential defense and will certainly be mentioned.
The question will then lie on wether Brown posed a threat to the officer? I say it will be hard to prove not, but we could go on and on about that for about 1000 or so posts.