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 )
A incident happened in NYC years ago a guy shot some absurd amount of times…..you ever wonder why?
That is why their training at that time and SOP said….when pulling out your gun and deciding to use it always shoot not to maim stop or injure….but to kill
So they changed it in training and sop to use your gun to best reasonably preent the attacker from causing harm to other or himself.
Albuquerque Ferguson quite a few places as mentioned they still have and use the old NYC protocol.
This is why the guy was shot 6 times. He was as they say following orders, his training and protocol.
We want to make this a race thing. 2 reporters were roughed up and throw into jail for no reason which is what all the protests are about this sort of treatment….know what they were white.
Al Sharpton others want to make this all about race and in some ways it is. In a lot of other ways it is not…this is all about how PO's act.
In this specific how they act as per how they were trained.
The PO…I can virtually guarantee you if this does go to trial which is about a 50/50 split right now…I predict he will be found innocent of murder.
I am able to predict the future as the information going in is correct. So the info going out the prediction is correct.
He was trained to act with 6 shots in that fashion.
AS years ago NYPD put something like 20 plus shots into someone…that was how they were trained…but it changed as it had to.
The officers were really not guilty of murder in that neither is this guy.
Ron police are not trained to shoot to kill either. They are trained to shoot center mass until there is no longer a threat. If they means they're dead...that's what it means. However there are police shootings all the time where the person doesn't die.
Quote:
on one of these threads that police officers are trained to pretty much empty their guns when a decision is made to shoot. That video of the guy stopped at the gas station and was shot while trying to retrieve his drivers license was a case in point ... multiple shots fired at a guy at point blank range after it was obvious he was not a threat. I imagine that policy, if it exists is to protect the officer, in which case I have to ask, how about protection for the civilian. Maybe the officer is mistaken, but the policy would be once you decide to shoot, kill him. I hope that policy does not exist.
River Mike...there is no police department anywhere in the United States that has a policy to empty their magazine one they start shooting.
Your point about the mistaken shooting is just proof of that. The guy definitely fucked up but he stopped shooting before his magazine was empty.
Halfback, I read it on one of these threads and I'm glad to hear its not the case. But the mistaken shooting in question is absolutely not proof of that. Even if the policy was to empty the gun (and I'm glad its not), its always possible that the lack of a threat is so obvious that the officer stops short. The fact that he fired as many times as he did is more of an indication that there might be such a policy than the fact that he did not empty his gun is proof that there isn't. And once more, thanks for clarifying that there is no such policy. I'm assuming you're in a position to know.
Quote:
In comment 11937674 T-Bone said:
Quote:
IF Mike Brown deserved to get shot, then that's exactly what happened.
But for me, if I was being attacked by a guy... even as big as Mike Brown was... who was still young at just 18 years old...it would take me a lot to not only shoot him once or twice... but multiple times. I've heard as much six or seven times. Shit, a warning shot in the air might do it.
And if Mike Brown was close enough to have blood splatter, from being shot by Wilson, all over the uniform, you mean to tell me you couldn't aim lower? Even a man that size is gonna stop in his tracks if he's shot in the leg... and this is a cop! It's not like you'd miss even if you shot him in the stomach. But at least he lives.
T bone, no offense but you don't know what you are talking about. It's extremely difficult to shoot someone in the arms or legs and if you waste your time aiming there, that could be your life. Arms and legs move...center mass is the easier target.
halfback20, no offense but your still are missing my point. Ok, if it takes one or two bullets to his torso... and he still dies because of it... that would be a bit more understandable IF Wilson's life was still truly being threatened. But like I just said to Big Al, 6+ bullets seems excessive.
These are TRAINED police officers. I'm sorry but saying 'You don't know how hard it is!' when, truth be told you probably don't either (unless you've been put into the situation yourself... which I doubt very few here have been) doesn't fly with me. If it's possible to stop the threat without killing the person... I believe that should be the objective. If you're telling me that whenever a cop pulls his gun and pulls the trigger he should be shooting to kill, if the target isn't armed himself, then I disagree with that policy. Don't get me wrong... if Brown had a weapon of any kind then I'd be in complete and full agreement... TAKE HIS ASS OUT! But he wasn't armed.
You willing to risk your life unnecessarily when somebody wants to kill you? Police aren't any different than anyone else. They have a right to defend themselves.
If the officers version of events are true and Mike Brown tried to take his gun, Mike Brown made it a deadly force situation. Add that in with the fact that he's huge...And that's just another reason.
I never said police should shoot to kill. I think they should stop the person from hurting or killing them though.
And you have read the articles posted, I hope, about what happens in a shooting. The fact that Wilson didn't empty an entire magazine means he showed some restraint. A lot of things happen to a person during a high stress situation like this. Things training can't completely change
As for you saying I don't know hard something is...are you talking about shooting at someone's arms or legs? I do know how hard that is. Go to a range with a pistol and shoot at a target from 10 to 15 yards. Then imagine shooting at someone's moving arms or legs. Then imagine that person is running at you and wants to kill you.
The training varies as per region and per dept. The model used in Albuq is used to some extent nationally(there is a name to it which I forget),,,trains the PO's to do that.
A gun is pulled out and used…it is to kill. Center mass has to do with that but nuance of stopping in some training methodologies it is mentioned and in some not. Stop the threat may be mentioned but overtly firstly the gun is used to kill by PO. The nuance is dependent upon the training.
Why do you think peoples in some places are shot 20 or 30 times by PO's have they suddenly gone collectively mad, with this one person…no they are in some places not all trained when pulling out the gun and using it to kill not stop.
Quote:
In comment 11938515 River Mike said:
Quote:
on one of these threads that police officers are trained to pretty much empty their guns when a decision is made to shoot. That video of the guy stopped at the gas station and was shot while trying to retrieve his drivers license was a case in point ... multiple shots fired at a guy at point blank range after it was obvious he was not a threat. I imagine that policy, if it exists is to protect the officer, in which case I have to ask, how about protection for the civilian. Maybe the officer is mistaken, but the policy would be once you decide to shoot, kill him. I hope that policy does not exist.
River Mike...there is no police department anywhere in the United States that has a policy to empty their magazine one they start shooting.
Your point about the mistaken shooting is just proof of that. The guy definitely fucked up but he stopped shooting before his magazine was empty.
Halfback, I read it on one of these threads and I'm glad to hear its not the case. But the mistaken shooting in question is absolutely not proof of that. Even if the policy was to empty the gun (and I'm glad its not), its always possible that the lack of a threat is so obvious that the officer stops short. The fact that he fired as many times as he did is more of an indication that there might be such a policy than the fact that he did not empty his gun is proof that there isn't. And once more, thanks for clarifying that there is no such policy. I'm assuming you're in a position to know.
The fact that he fired so many times is nothing more than the fact that he felt there was a threat and adrenaline, tunnel vision etc kicked in and took over. The article posted earlier here about the effects of a shooting is very informative and everyone should read it. I don't remember how many times he shot but I know that a person can empty a15 round magazine I'm only a few seconds.
That said, he still killed him... perhaps unnecessarily... perhaps not. With over 6+ holes in the Brown's body... at the moment I'm leaning more to the 'unnecessary' side. But if more SOLID evidence comes out saying that it was necessary, I have no problem accepting that and moving on.
The part in bold is what I have a problem with if it's being used as an excuse for an officer being able to continue to shoot at someone if the threat is no longer there... particularly if the person being shot is unarmed.
It is because the training is faulted the individual officers are doing what they are trained to do and thus innocent.
Why do I know about all this stuff….part is personal but more of it is that it is a local thing most who bother know about, every lawyer who is involved in this type litigation knows about this. Basically they just show up in court and collect a million dollar paycheck for the litigant all the work was done in court on the training about 6 or so years ago.
Ferguson…I be my bottom dollar they use the same training methodology or a similar one.
The training varies as per region and per dept. The model used in Albuq is used to some extent nationally(there is a name to it which I forget),,,trains the PO's to do that.
A gun is pulled out and used…it is to kill. Center mass has to do with that but nuance of stopping in some training methodologies it is mentioned and in some not. Stop the threat may be mentioned but overtly firstly the gun is used to kill by PO. The nuance is dependent upon the training.
Why do you think peoples in some places are shot 20 or 30 times by PO's have they suddenly gone collectively mad, with this one person…no they are in some places not all trained when pulling out the gun and using it to kill not stop.
You can not prove what you are saying because it's not true.
"Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once-shoot and assess-a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.
This article seems to be pretty informative but I'm not done reading it yet.
Here is another good part...
.
link - ( New Window )
Quote:
The fact that he fired so many times is nothing more than the fact that he felt there was a threat and adrenaline, tunnel vision etc kicked in and took over.
The part in bold is what I have a problem with if it's being used as an excuse for an officer being able to continue to shoot at someone if the threat is no longer there... particularly if the person being shot is unarmed.
I didn't say Wilson shot any after Brown stopped being a threat btw, I'm just saying sometimes if you see a high number of shots that is why.
The article I posted says it takes 1/4 of a second per round fired.
And you keep saying unarmed like Brown wasn't a threat. He was 6'4 300 lbs and allegedly grabbed for the officers gun, then was coming towards him...He was a threat if all that's true whether he was armed or not.
That said, he still killed him... perhaps unnecessarily... perhaps not. With over 6+ holes in the Brown's body... at the moment I'm leaning more to the 'unnecessary' side. But if more SOLID evidence comes out saying that it was necessary, I have no problem accepting that and moving on.
The final shot stopped Brown. If he was still coming towards him what do you expect the officer to do?
In any event it is here. Albuq the DOJ stepped in told them change it or we take over. So they are changing it, not because they want to because they have to. Their has been so much litigation the DOJ has cause to take over the dept. When things get out of control police wise in places this is what happened. The DOJ related to litigation and the impact of police action on civil rights and other things has to step in by law.
Ferguson…..again this 6 shot thing. Most likely seeing the obvious militarization we have seen there they use this military type training model as well, possibly the same one used in Albuquerque.
So the guy is shot 6 times as they are trained to shoot to kill whenever they shoot at all…that is just how it is.
6 shots may be what it takes. 1 would stop him but not kill him 1 then is counter to the sop and training. The intention is not to stop but by training to kill, when the gun is ever used by the officer.
It is counter to common sense which is why like in A they loose loose loose in litigation and eventually the DOJ steps in. What they have created by administration is unconstitutional. It takes quite a while however for that to happen.
riots all that racial forces the hand a bit but really this is not race but militarization of the police forces in America. We need to modify that it is clear.
The PO he will be found innocent of murder, I am as certain as I can be in things. Occasionally I am wrong in things(as all are ) but not a whole lot when I take the time to predict a thing and know a bit about a thing.
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that he fired so many times is nothing more than the fact that he felt there was a threat and adrenaline, tunnel vision etc kicked in and took over.
The part in bold is what I have a problem with if it's being used as an excuse for an officer being able to continue to shoot at someone if the threat is no longer there... particularly if the person being shot is unarmed.
I didn't say Wilson shot any after Brown stopped being a threat btw, I'm just saying sometimes if you see a high number of shots that is why.
The article I posted says it takes 1/4 of a second per round fired.
And you keep saying unarmed like Brown wasn't a threat. He was 6'4 300 lbs and allegedly grabbed for the officers gun, then was coming towards him...He was a threat if all that's true whether he was armed or not.
I understood what you were saying.
No... I keep saying he was unarmed because he wasn't. I never said he wasn't a threat because he was unarmed. What I did say was that because he was unarmed, I'm wondering how many shots did it take until Brown was no longer a threat and did it have to take 6+ shots (including already one in his hand from the struggle in the vehicle remember) in order for him to be at that point? If Brown was armed, then I'd have no problem with Wilson shooting him as much as he felt it took to stop the threat. But that wasn't the case.
Quote:
I also don't think he'll be charged and convicted of murder. I wouldn't have a hard time at all believing him if Wilson said his it wasn't his intent to kill Brown (I don't know if he's stated this one way or the other).
That said, he still killed him... perhaps unnecessarily... perhaps not. With over 6+ holes in the Brown's body... at the moment I'm leaning more to the 'unnecessary' side. But if more SOLID evidence comes out saying that it was necessary, I have no problem accepting that and moving on.
The final shot stopped Brown. If he was still coming towards him what do you expect the officer to do?
I expect him to asses whether he is still a threat with at least 5-6 bullets already in him before that last shot.
The reason I say that is because I've been hearing different stories as to when exactly Brown stopped. I've read that Brown was still coming at Wilson when Wilson delivered the final shot to the head, while Brown was still on his feet, and that stopped him. I've also read that the final shot was delivered while Brown was on his knees. And I've also read that the final shot was delivered to Brown while he was already on the ground and Wilson was standing over him.
P depts don't go to that extent but they have assumed some of the military fashion of training in the last 15 years or so. One can see that with the equipment they are acquiring, they are leaning towards a more military response to policing.
DBPO the training methodology adopted by Police depts in some instances produces inordinate and inappropriate types and number of DBPO.
This methodology is reflective of the lean towards the militarization of police depts.
The officer is simply the subject of his training and with a few rogue exceptions will do what he is trained to.
Seeing the dept how they acted initially with the demonstrators and all…clearly this is a militarized police dept.
The officer is innocent he is simply a product of the training and climate.
Do we need to get away from that…certainly it is for one unconstitutional and it leads to bocu losses in litigation. The legal system is not so militarized and will vie for the litigation every time in WD suits related to this.
Look to Albuq that is the future for every dept that goes down this and Ferguson's path. the riots all that secondary to loosing hand over fist all your tax dollars in litigation.
The pendulum swings in policing but this guy is likely found innocent of murder. He was but a product a eventual predictable outcome of a militarized police force...
Some here have been in basic training…is that not how you are trained?
Think then this is a bit not all, but a bit, now going into police training as some of the equipment of the military is seeping into the police depts as a whole nationally.
That in a nutshell is the why of the 6 bullets. He was indeed trained to it.
Quote:
In comment 11938018 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 11937963 Big Al said:
Quote:
6 shots? Link - ( New Window )
Thanks for that link Big Al. That was very informative. I now have a new understanding about the thought process of what officers go through when they fire their gun.
But while admitting that... that doesn't mean that they should be excused if they 'accidentally', only for lack of a better way of putting it, shoot someone more than what's necessary to end the threat. But I do appreciate the link and the info in it.
.
I don't know what you mean by excused. If you believe that being not excused and therefore sentenced to prison time for a split second decision made under extreme stress, I would strongly disagree.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If during a split second decision you kill someone... and it's determined that even within that split second decision you unnecessarily took someone's life... you still have to pay the price for your 'mistake'. Happens all the time to both civilians and law enforcement.
Quote:
In comment 11938018 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 11937963 Big Al said:
Quote:
6 shots? Link - ( New Window )
Thanks for that link Big Al. That was very informative. I now have a new understanding about the thought process of what officers go through when they fire their gun.
But while admitting that... that doesn't mean that they should be excused if they 'accidentally', only for lack of a better way of putting it, shoot someone more than what's necessary to end the threat. But I do appreciate the link and the info in it.
.
I don't know what you mean by excused. If you believe that being not excused and therefore sentenced to prison time for a split second decision made under extreme stress, I would strongly disagree.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If during a split second decision you kill someone... and it's determined that even within that split second decision you unnecessarily took someone's life... you still have to pay the price for your 'mistake'. Happens all the time to both civilians and law enforcement.
In case of civilians, you need to look at the circumstances. A civilian who makes a legitimate mistake thinking self defense, should not be the same as someone who inadvertently kills in the course of committing a crime.
Quote:
In comment 11938076 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 11938018 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 11937963 Big Al said:
Quote:
6 shots? Link - ( New Window )
Thanks for that link Big Al. That was very informative. I now have a new understanding about the thought process of what officers go through when they fire their gun.
But while admitting that... that doesn't mean that they should be excused if they 'accidentally', only for lack of a better way of putting it, shoot someone more than what's necessary to end the threat. But I do appreciate the link and the info in it.
.
I don't know what you mean by excused. If you believe that being not excused and therefore sentenced to prison time for a split second decision made under extreme stress, I would strongly disagree.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If during a split second decision you kill someone... and it's determined that even within that split second decision you unnecessarily took someone's life... you still have to pay the price for your 'mistake'. Happens all the time to both civilians and law enforcement.
You ever see one of those simulations where military or police trainees go into a building and cardboard of villains or innocent suddenly appear and you have to make a a split second decision on whether to shoot or be shot. In that situation the innocent cardboard I s often shot. Now imagine telling a trainee I'd you make that mistake in real life in under even more stress you go to prison for years. Doubt if many would be willing to serve knowing even good faith decisions put you in prison no matter how much danger you might be in.
In case of civilians, you need to look at the circumstances. A civilian who makes a legitimate mistake thinking self defense, should not be the same as someone who inadvertently kills in the course of committing a crime.
Yeah I've seen it. And I've also seen prospective police officers who are taking part of that simulated training get dinged for if they make a mistake and shoot the innocent cardboard... and in some cases don't even make the force... and personally, if someone who is ready, able and allowed to use lethal force can't make good decisions within those split seconds... I'd personally he NOT receive a badge. But that's probably just me. I'll trust my life against the criminals who I KNOW are bad vs the guys who I'm supposed to be trusting.
By the way, check out the below link to some of what I (and I believe ron in new mexico) are referring to. It's not a site I've ever been to before and only found it by Googling 'Police overkill'.
Militrization of Police force - ( New Window )
Yep.
Quote:
In comment 11938561 T-Bone said:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that he fired so many times is nothing more than the fact that he felt there was a threat and adrenaline, tunnel vision etc kicked in and took over.
The part in bold is what I have a problem with if it's being used as an excuse for an officer being able to continue to shoot at someone if the threat is no longer there... particularly if the person being shot is unarmed.
I didn't say Wilson shot any after Brown stopped being a threat btw, I'm just saying sometimes if you see a high number of shots that is why.
The article I posted says it takes 1/4 of a second per round fired.
And you keep saying unarmed like Brown wasn't a threat. He was 6'4 300 lbs and allegedly grabbed for the officers gun, then was coming towards him...He was a threat if all that's true whether he was armed or not.
I understood what you were saying.
No... I keep saying he was unarmed because he wasn't. I never said he wasn't a threat because he was unarmed. What I did say was that because he was unarmed, I'm wondering how many shots did it take until Brown was no longer a threat and did it have to take 6+ shots (including already one in his hand from the struggle in the vehicle remember) in order for him to be at that point? If Brown was armed, then I'd have no problem with Wilson shooting him as much as he felt it took to stop the threat. But that wasn't the case.
You did it again. It's like you think the only way he could have been a threat is if he had a weapon and simply is not true.
One of the possible scenarios that happened is that Brown attacked the Officer and tried to take his gun. He then took off running towards the Officer...
In that situation do you expect the Officer to ask him nicely to stop? No...he's going to stop him. He doesn't have a taser, pepper spray is out of the question and a baton is as well because Brown has already tried to take his weapon.
You keep saying you expect police to make split second decisions or go to jail...but what you don't seem to get is that sometimes it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. I've posted an article that says it takes 1/4 of a second to fire a round...how long do you think it takes for your brain to assess and tell yourself to stop shooting?
Take this made up scenario for example...
Jimmy comes at Officer Smith with a knife. Jimmy says out loud that he is going to kill Officer Smith. Officer Smith fires his gun 6 times and it is discovered that the 6th and final shot came 1/4 of a second after Jimmy starts falling to the ground dead. You want Officer Smith prosecuted for that? Change the scenario a little...and say Jimmy is attacking your wife/girlfriend/brother/or anyone you care about. Officer Smith is there and shoots Jimmy and stops him, but its discovered that the last shot came 1/4 of a second too late and Jimmy was already falling to the ground...
You want him to go to jail?
Quote:
In comment 11938558 T-Bone said:
Quote:
I also don't think he'll be charged and convicted of murder. I wouldn't have a hard time at all believing him if Wilson said his it wasn't his intent to kill Brown (I don't know if he's stated this one way or the other).
That said, he still killed him... perhaps unnecessarily... perhaps not. With over 6+ holes in the Brown's body... at the moment I'm leaning more to the 'unnecessary' side. But if more SOLID evidence comes out saying that it was necessary, I have no problem accepting that and moving on.
The final shot stopped Brown. If he was still coming towards him what do you expect the officer to do?
I expect him to asses whether he is still a threat with at least 5-6 bullets already in him before that last shot.
The reason I say that is because I've been hearing different stories as to when exactly Brown stopped. I've read that Brown was still coming at Wilson when Wilson delivered the final shot to the head, while Brown was still on his feet, and that stopped him. I've also read that the final shot was delivered while Brown was on his knees. And I've also read that the final shot was delivered to Brown while he was already on the ground and Wilson was standing over him.
Ive never seen it from anyone or any site that is credible that the final shot came from Wilson standing over Brown.
buford, I may be mistaken and either read what I'd thought I'd read wrong or else the story has changed over the past few weeks (most likely). I found the below linked article using Google and it says he was standing over him after he'd been killed already. It's from about a week ago.
In the article, while talking about how many times Brown was shot I notice that he'd been shot twice in the head. I'd be interested in knowing when those shots occurred? It says he was shot 4 times in the arm and twice in the head.
Wilson standing over Brown - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11938478 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 11938076 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 11938018 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 11937963 Big Al said:
Quote:
6 shots? Link - ( New Window )
Thanks for that link Big Al. That was very informative. I now have a new understanding about the thought process of what officers go through when they fire their gun.
But while admitting that... that doesn't mean that they should be excused if they 'accidentally', only for lack of a better way of putting it, shoot someone more than what's necessary to end the threat. But I do appreciate the link and the info in it.
.
I don't know what you mean by excused. If you believe that being not excused and therefore sentenced to prison time for a split second decision made under extreme stress, I would strongly disagree.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If during a split second decision you kill someone... and it's determined that even within that split second decision you unnecessarily took someone's life... you still have to pay the price for your 'mistake'. Happens all the time to both civilians and law enforcement.
You ever see one of those simulations where military or police trainees go into a building and cardboard of villains or innocent suddenly appear and you have to make a a split second decision on whether to shoot or be shot. In that situation the innocent cardboard I s often shot. Now imagine telling a trainee I'd you make that mistake in real life in under even more stress you go to prison for years. Doubt if many would be willing to serve knowing even good faith decisions put you in prison no matter how much danger you might be in.
In case of civilians, you need to look at the circumstances. A civilian who makes a legitimate mistake thinking self defense, should not be the same as someone who inadvertently kills in the course of committing a crime.
Yeah I've seen it. And I've also seen prospective police officers who are taking part of that simulated training get dinged for if they make a mistake and shoot the innocent cardboard... and in some cases don't even make the force... and personally, if someone who is ready, able and allowed to use lethal force can't make good decisions within those split seconds... I'd personally he NOT receive a badge. But that's probably just me. I'll trust my life against the criminals who I KNOW are bad vs the guys who I'm supposed to be trusting.
By the way, check out the below link to some of what I (and I believe ron in new mexico) are referring to. It's not a site I've ever been to before and only found it by Googling 'Police overkill'. Militrization of Police force - ( New Window )
You google "police overkill", what do you expect to get? You get a website that is full of bias and has an agenda against police.
Here's an article from a former member of the military...it has a clever title. Maybe some people here will accidentally stumble on it when they google "I hate cops".
LINK - ( New Window )
Zoltar the magnificent(ron in new mexico)..begins his trail of conquest ;)
Soooon all you will think or know..it will be ron in new mexico……through that screen flung…...
Quote:
and put in the final shots, then he should be charged. But I don't think the autopsy or testimony supports that.
buford, I may be mistaken and either read what I'd thought I'd read wrong or else the story has changed over the past few weeks (most likely). I found the below linked article using Google and it says he was standing over him after he'd been killed already. It's from about a week ago.
In the article, while talking about how many times Brown was shot I notice that he'd been shot twice in the head. I'd be interested in knowing when those shots occurred? It says he was shot 4 times in the arm and twice in the head. Wilson standing over Brown - ( New Window )
I didn't see it anywhere in that article that Wilson was standing over Brown when the final shot was fired.
He actually ran away from the office first. So that makes your possible scenario moot... and that's if, in fact, Brown tried to take the officer's gun... which we only have the officer's testimony telling us that. We have other witnesses saying that there was a scuffle in the car, but none (as far as I know) have confirmed that he was going for his gun.
Why is pepper spray 'out of the question' OUTSIDE the car? Supposedly Wilson said he didn't use his pepper spray while in the car because he was afraid he'd be affected by it also. So why not use it once he got out? And I disagree that the baton is also out of the question simply because Brown went for his gun earlier. If he can't use his pepper spray and baton on someone... after shooting him in the hand already... what are they there for? Or should they only be used for smaller people but for the bigger guys it's ok to shoot to kill?
Technically, no I didn't. I said a PO should be PUNISHED if they make the wrong decision...even if it's within a split second. Big Al mentioned jail time. I was going to say the same to him but it slipped my mind. If jail time is deemed it should be part of that, then so be it.
And sometimes it isn't. That's what needs to be determined in THIS case.
With regards to your made up scenario, of course I wouldn't expect the PO to be punished in THAT scenario. But that scenario isn't the same as Brown's is seeing as how Brown didn't have a knife... nor did he, as far as I know, yell 'I'm going to kill you' to Wilson.
Quote:
In comment 11938686 buford said:
Quote:
and put in the final shots, then he should be charged. But I don't think the autopsy or testimony supports that.
buford, I may be mistaken and either read what I'd thought I'd read wrong or else the story has changed over the past few weeks (most likely). I found the below linked article using Google and it says he was standing over him after he'd been killed already. It's from about a week ago.
In the article, while talking about how many times Brown was shot I notice that he'd been shot twice in the head. I'd be interested in knowing when those shots occurred? It says he was shot 4 times in the arm and twice in the head. Wilson standing over Brown - ( New Window )
I didn't see it anywhere in that article that Wilson was standing over Brown when the final shot was fired.
Yeah... I kind of already admitted that I either read it wrong a few weeks ago OR new, different info came out and have apologized for that.
it is precious ;)
Zoltar the magnificent(ron in new mexico)..begins his trail of conquest ;)
Soooon all you will think or know..it will be ron in new mexico……through that screen flung…...
LOL! You're alright with me ron!
Quote:
One of the possible scenarios that happened is that Brown attacked the Officer and tried to take his gun. He then took off running towards the Officer...
He actually ran away from the office first. So that makes your possible scenario moot... and that's if, in fact, Brown tried to take the officer's gun... which we only have the officer's testimony telling us that. We have other witnesses saying that there was a scuffle in the car, but none (as far as I know) have confirmed that he was going for his gun.
Quote:
He doesn't have a taser, pepper spray is out of the question and a baton is as well because Brown has already tried to take his weapon.
Why is pepper spray 'out of the question' OUTSIDE the car? Supposedly Wilson said he didn't use his pepper spray while in the car because he was afraid he'd be affected by it also. So why not use it once he got out? And I disagree that the baton is also out of the question simply because Brown went for his gun earlier. If he can't use his pepper spray and baton on someone... after shooting him in the hand already... what are they there for? Or should they only be used for smaller people but for the bigger guys it's ok to shoot to kill?
Quote:
You keep saying you expect police to make split second decisions or go to jail
Technically, no I didn't. I said a PO should be PUNISHED if they make the wrong decision...even if it's within a split second. Big Al mentioned jail time. I was going to say the same to him but it slipped my mind. If jail time is deemed it should be part of that, then so be it.
Quote:
but what you don't seem to get is that sometimes it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
And sometimes it isn't. That's what needs to be determined in THIS case.
With regards to your made up scenario, of course I wouldn't expect the PO to be punished in THAT scenario. But that scenario isn't the same as Brown's is seeing as how Brown didn't have a knife... nor did he, as far as I know, yell 'I'm going to kill you' to Wilson.
He ran away only to turn back and at some point come back towards the Officer. That has been apparently confirmed by blood spatter.
The pepper spray is out of the question because it's a 6'4" 300 lb man who, if he went for his gun, has already displayed intentions to kill. Same for the baton. If a 6'4" 300 lb man wanted to kill you, has already punched you in the face, and tried to take your gun, are you going to get anywhere close to them to give them another chance?
As for the punishment...maybe I shouldn't have said jail but the point still stands. You want someone punished for something that they might not physically be able to control. Would you be willing to do the job of a police officer knowing that if you fired one extra round 1/4 of a second too late you are going to be punished, even though you were physically incapable of stopping yourself from doing it?
As for the last part...that is what you don't seem to get. Brown didn't have to have a knife or a gun to be a deadly threat. He's huge, he allegedly attacked the officer and allegedly went for his gun...that makes him just as deadly. It's almost like you'd want the officer to give him another chance to go for his gun before he decides to stop him...
All misguided...People see what they want. Been a lesson in that for sure.
Watch a video of a robbery, assault, menacing say it wasnt violent...
Say cop was standing over him according to some reports but no one has really said that.
Ignore forensics repeatedly
There is a desperation to believe in this poor troubled sweet kid, a teen, just a teen is all...
Truth is he would have gone to jail for a long long time and no one would give a shit about this kid who assaulted a cop and committed a robbery. But he is just a kid...lol
At this point you are just making things up. I never said that the police don't screw up. I will say that it is far less than what you think. In 2010 the CATO Institute did a study showing that there were just over 6000 police officers in the United States ACCUSED of misconduct. That same year there were over 700,000 police officers in the United States. That comes out to just under 1% of police that were ACCUSED of misconduct that year...not convicted or confirmed cases of misconduct...ACCUSED.
And in your last scenario it sounds like your problem should be with the woman who pointed someone out, not the police who listened. If she had been telling the truth and they ignored her you'd have just as many people saying they didn't do their jobs right.
I've asked before and I'll ask again, how do they KNOW that the blood on him wasn't from the shot that occured in the car that went through his hand? That's an honest question.
No real offense meant to you or PA but you're starting to sound like PA at this point and if that's going to start to be the case then I'm probably going to stop because you're ASSUMING 1) that he actually went for his gun (which, besides the Office's testimony, can't be confirmed) and 2) that even had he gone for the gun that it was with the intention to kill the officer and again, besides the officer's testimony, we have no way of knowing if he was in fact going for his gun and if he was, was it with the intention to kill him with it.
One extra round? Probably not. But 4 or 5 or 6 or more? Yeah... you have some 'splainin to do mister.
No.. I want the officer to get home safely to his family... but, if at all possible, I'd like to see an 18 year old kid go home to his momma too. Again, if at all possible. The question is, what it at all possible? For some reason some of you have a problem with asking that question and I don't understand why?
.stopped for letting a minor drive on the beach…they let you drive on the beach there, not a road on the sand. As I was not driving and it was a usual place bright sunny day in the middle of the afternoon on the beach... safe environment and all that I did the wrong thing….
I started to open the door to get my wallet which was in the back seat….the ranger yells at the top of his lungs….get back in the car, while in a crouch with himself behind the door as they are taught in certain situations….
Ok I did a wrong thing…..ten or so years ago he says in a polite but hearable tone….please get back in your car sir(this is after all TExas they are polite there).
But things have changed it is as they are.
PO's PDs not all certainly not NYC places like that, but often probably mostly the smaller depts…..they have become militarized and no longer do things as they were done even ten years ago.
So DBPO is the result.
This guy this PO is found innocent.
6 bullets is the result of what I mention.
Why can't I have a problem with the woman AND the police? The woman for wrong accusing my brother and friends and the police for not even giving any of us an opportunity to explain how it couldn't possibly be us (we had just came from a party and could've provided witnesses and photos confirming that). The immediately came up to our group and just started grabbing those of us that was closest to the door and any one of us that came outside to find out what was wrong she was just standing by the door and as each one of us came out the door she was just standing there pointing 'him...and him...and him....'. They never even gave us a chance to plead our case. My father wasn't too happy to hear about that and made sure he voiced his thoughts to the New Brunswick PD.
LOL! Ok... EVENTUALLY he would've went home to his mommma... after he got out of jail for all the stuff you keep repeating over and over and over and over and over again. Thanks.
Quote:
He ran away only to turn back and at some point come back towards the Officer. That has been apparently confirmed by blood spatter.
I've asked before and I'll ask again, how do they KNOW that the blood on him wasn't from the shot that occured in the car that went through his hand? That's an honest question.
Quote:
The pepper spray is out of the question because it's a 6'4" 300 lb man who, if he went for his gun, has already displayed intentions to kill. Same for the baton. If a 6'4" 300 lb man wanted to kill you, has already punched you in the face, and tried to take your gun, are you going to get anywhere close to them to give them another chance?
No real offense meant to you or PA but you're starting to sound like PA at this point and if that's going to start to be the case then I'm probably going to stop because you're ASSUMING 1) that he actually went for his gun (which, besides the Office's testimony, can't be confirmed) and 2) that even had he gone for the gun that it was with the intention to kill the officer and again, besides the officer's testimony, we have no way of knowing if he was in fact going for his gun and if he was, was it with the intention to kill him with it.
Quote:
Would you be willing to do the job of a police officer knowing that if you fired one extra round 1/4 of a second too late you are going to be punished, even though you were physically incapable of stopping yourself from doing it?
One extra round? Probably not. But 4 or 5 or 6 or more? Yeah... you have some 'splainin to do mister.
Quote:
Brown didn't have to have a knife or a gun to be a deadly threat. He's huge, he allegedly attacked the officer and allegedly went for his gun...that makes him just as deadly. It's almost like you'd want the officer to give him another chance to go for his gun before he decides to stop him...
No.. I want the officer to get home safely to his family... but, if at all possible, I'd like to see an 18 year old kid go home to his momma too. Again, if at all possible. The question is, what it at all possible? For some reason some of you have a problem with asking that question and I don't understand why?
*Who said anything about the blood on Officer Wilson? I don't think the blood spatter they are talking about is the blood on Officer Wilson.
*Notice the keyword in my post was IF. You seemed to miss it. I said IF he went for his gun. Although it is hilarious that you think there is another reason he might have been trying to grab a police officers gun...
*As for your last statement... Would I like to live in a perfect world where no one dies? Yes. I also do not expect a police officer to risk his/her life unnecessarily because someone is trying to kill them. Again, so you don't accuse me of being like PA....(maybe I need to do this in every post now) I don't know exactly what happened and I'm only saying these things based on the possibility that what Officer Wilson says might be true. I will say that I feel like the evidence appears to favor Wilsons version of what happened more than the original story we got from eye witnesses who claimed he was on his knees with his hands up...
It seems hard for you to admit that Michael Brown might bear the responsibility of his own death. If he did in fact do the things Officer Wilson says, its no one's fault but his own that he is dead.