Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Tom Sawyer]

How in the fuck does someone die in such circumstances?

#1 - Be black
#2 - See #1

 

[Derec]

He was stopped for Jaywalking?!? How in the fuck does someone die in such circumstances?

Attacking the police officer and going for his gun usually does the trick.

 

[Trausti]

How in the fuck does someone die in such circumstances?

#1 - Be black
#2 - See #1

#3 - attack police officer
#4 - grab for police officer's gun
#5 - taunt police officer
#6 - ignore police officer's commend to freeze
#7 - attempt to bum rush police officer.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

#1 - Be black
#2 - See #1

#3 - attack police officer
#4 - grab for police officer's gun
#5 - taunt police officer
#6 - ignore police officer's commend to freeze
#7 - attempt to bum rush police officer.

And you never get to the dying part from any of that if you're not black.

 

[laughing dog]

It was a shooting that resulting in death. It may end up being justifiable homicide, but it is still a homicide. Given that stopping Mr. Brown for jaywalking (!!!!!) started this entire tragedy, I think it is reasonable to place the onus on the police to show this was a righteous act on the part of Officer Wilson.

I haven't paid much attention to the details and made some assumptions. Apparently wrong ones. He was stopped for Jaywalking?!? How in the fuck does someone die in such circumstances?

He or she gets shot six times.

 

[Derec]

And you never get to the dying part from any of that if you're not black.

No, police never shoot unarmed white guys.
However, in this case there were no QuikTrips torched, no stores looted, no rioting, no wall-to-wall coverage on CNN, no Al Sharpton to be seen anywhere in the vicinity, no Eric Holder's DOJ involvement, no three autopsies, no Obama press conferences, so I guess it's excusable that some people believe it never happens.

 

[Trausti]

#3 - attack police officer
#4 - grab for police officer's gun
#5 - taunt police officer
#6 - ignore police officer's commend to freeze
#7 - attempt to bum rush police officer.

And you never get to the dying part from any of that if you're not black.

Do you have a specific case in mind where someone did those things and did not face serious injury? Bum rushing an armed cop is pretty much Darwin award territory.

 

[doubtingt]

#3 - attack police officer
#4 - grab for police officer's gun
#5 - taunt police officer
#6 - ignore police officer's commend to freeze
#7 - attempt to bum rush police officer.

And you never get to the dying part from any of that if you're not black.

IOW, you're claiming no unarmed white people have never been shot by the cops? Any evidence for that?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Holy shit, people.

Seriously.

Holy shit.

Do you really need smileys for posts like that?

 

[Jayjay]

You don't have to be black to be shot by the police, but it helps.

(Put that on a T-shirt...)

 

[doubtingt]

Holy shit, people.

Seriously.

Holy shit.

Do you really need smileys for posts like that?

Normally, I assume you are being sarcastic, but it didn't seem funny by your normal standards, and many comments in this and related threads have been no less absurd and in denial of reason or fact.

 

[Toni]

Well, that is apparently the police officer's version as told by a friend.

According to Josie, Officer Wilson was aware of the convenience store robbery and had flagged down Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson for walking in the middle of the street. When he realized the description on the police radio matched that of Brown, he pulled up near them to get out of the car. That’s when, as Josie told host Dana Loesch, Brown allegedly shoved the officer back into his cruiser and punched him in the face.

Josie alleged that Brown reached for Wilson’s gun and, at one point, had it completely turned against the officer’s hip. When the officer shoved the weapon away, it fired, she said.

“Michael takes off with his friend,” she continued. “And they get to be about 35 feet away.” Josie asserted that Wilson then followed police protocol by pursuing Brown and telling him to “freeze.” She claimed that Brown “started hounding” the officer, suggesting he wouldn’t actually fire the weapon at the teenagers.

“All of the sudden, [Brown] just started to bum rush him,” Josie added. “He just started coming at him, full-speed, and so [Wilson] just started shooting, and [Brown] just kept coming.”

And more: “So [Wilson] really thinks [Brown] was on something, because he just kept coming. It was unbelievable. And so he finally ended up, the final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two to three feet in front of the officer.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-airs-officers-side-of-story-as-recounted-by-friend-of-darren-wilson/

Consistent with witness statements and the autopsy.

Which witness statements would those be?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Speaking of the autopsy report conducted by Boden : there is NO conclusion that the 2 shots to Brown's head support any notion that he "was charging the officer". In fact several analysts are questioning how a 6 feet 3 tall man could have wounds of such nature to his head while still in a standing up position. Considering that both shots were certainly not shot by a sniper on the top of a building. The entry of the bullets demonstrating shots fired as the target had to be almost parallel to the ground. That would support the theory that Brown was either collapsing or already on the ground when the fatal shot was fired.

Further...who are those alleged EYEwitnesses who claim that Brown was "charging the officer"? Surely, this Lady relating what Officer Wilson told her is not being confused for an eye witness or is she?

 

[laughing dog]

And you never get to the dying part from any of that if you're not black.

Do you have a specific case in mind where someone did those things and did not face serious injury? Bum rushing an armed cop is pretty much Darwin award territory.

Probably true, but do we know that is what happened here?

 

[Axulus]

What are the protesters demands at this point?

-Both state and federal government are conducting a full investigation. An arrest won't be made until the investigation has made progress. The fact that no arrest has yet been made shouldn't be reason to protest. If the investigation is concluded and no arrest is made, I could then understand the anger. The initial protests make sense to draw attention to the incident. Mission accomplished. Now what?

-New policies to combat racism in the police force? What specific policies are they desiring, being that an unjustified police shooting of an unarmed black teenager is already either murder or manslaughter (depending on the specific circumstances).

-If being an unarmed black teenager is a high risk of getting shot by the police, then wouldn't it be the case that such incidents would happen much more frequently? It's many times more likely that a black unarmed teenager will be killed by a criminal/gang related activity than by the police.

 

[laughing dog]

-If being an unarmed black teenager is a high risk of getting shot by the police, then wouldn't it be the case that such incidents would happen much more frequently? It's many times more likely that a black unarmed teenager will be killed by a criminal than by the police.

I believe most people think it worse when a trained officer of the law kills an unarmed person than a criminal, regardless of the relative frequencies of the events.

 

[Axulus]

-If being an unarmed black teenager is a high risk of getting shot by the police, then wouldn't it be the case that such incidents would happen much more frequently? It's many times more likely that a black unarmed teenager will be killed by a criminal than by the police.

I believe most people think it worse when a trained officer of the law kills an unarmed person than a criminal, regardless of the relative frequencies of the events.

I agree it's worse, but there will always be shitty unqualified members as part of any large group, as no screening process and training is perfect to reduce the chance of such to zero. There are quite a few individuals who are employed in law enforcement across the nation as a whole.

The more relevant questions: are there too many shitty unqualified police officers who display detectable elements of racism when carrying out their duties and, if so, are sufficient efforts being made to reduce their numbers? What is the criteria to determine if sufficient efforts are in fact being made? What is the tolerable threshold for the proportion of shitty unqualified law enforcement members given that perfection/zero such members in any large group is not a realistic possibility as mentioned above, and how close/far away are we currently to this threshold?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Actually, this is the first time in this thread that I brought up that specific point. And no matter how specific I was in my wording, it appears you are misunderstanding what the actual point is.

You bring it up again and again on shooting threads and it's never right.

Can you provide evidence that LEOs whether City, County, State or Federal are not trained to disable versus shooting to kill in circumstances when dealing with an unarmed person? I can attest that my ex who became a Fed after his discharge from Active Duty was trained to shoot to kill only when the suspect was armed and presenting a threat of death or harm to himself or other persons. Surely, you can link to evidence to your repeated claim that "its never right" that LEOs are trained to disable versus shooting to kill under such circumstances.

I will repeat it : are we to settle for LEOs acting as Judge and Jury by delivering and executing what is the equivalent of a death sentence?

Then lets get rid of the notion of self defense. If the thug wants to rape you you're not allowed to resist other than by running away.

Again, you are claiming that LEOs only shoot to kill as you have eliminated the shooting to disable when I directly referred to a situation involving an unarmed individual and in a fleeing situation. Reminder : you have zero evidence that Brown "was charging the Officer". No eyewitness to such claim. You only have the second hand report by a friend of Wilson who is ONLY relating what Officer Wilson told her. You are treating this case as if the claim via "charging the Officer" constitutes proof of self defense on the part of the LEO known as Officer Wilson.

Do you actually *think* that this LEO would not claim self defense to justify the use of lethal force against an unarmed individual?

Other than in very narrow circumstances there is no such thing as shoot to disable. You shoot to stop, the reality is that such shots are likely to kill.

You mean to tell me that trained LEOs are given a pass to shoot to kill when dealing with a circumstance when the running away party is UNarmed and further the same running away party presenting NO threat of death or imminent harm to the pursuing LEO? You do realize that if such "pass" existed, it would mean that indeed law enforcement officers cross over into the Judiciary system.

*IF* he was running away and posed no threat to the officers or others you would be right.

Let's rewind, shall we ? This below,

Other than in very narrow circumstances there is no such thing as shoot to disable. You shoot to stop, the reality is that such shots are likely to kill. While there are spots that could disable without killing they're beyond human ability to hit on a moving target. Under combat conditions the typical trained shooter will be doing well to hit the torso, let alone a small target deep within the body.

was your response to my initial question regarding shooting to disable versus shooting to kill. Care to explain how the fatal bullet wound to Brown's head at a time it is questionable that Brown could have been in a standing up position is consistent with "shooting to stop"? Is that a protocol for LEOs to keep shooting and to kill when the previously shot at individual is either collapsing or already on the ground when the same individual is unarmed? And certainly NOT in a close physical proximity of the LEO?

However, all the hits were in front. He wasn't running away.

Actually,at this point, there has been no conclusive consensus that " he was not running away" and the "hits were in front". If you paid attention to how various interviewed experts have been interpreting the results of the autopsy conducted by Boden, what they all have brought up consistently is that the shots on Brown's arms can easily be interpreted as "front" or "back" due to the extreme mobility and variety of motions in the arms of an individual who is walking or running.

While there are spots that could disable without killing they're beyond human ability to hit on a moving target.

But a fatal shot to the head is somehow easier on a moving target? And again and again when the said target is UNarmed and presenting no imminent threat of death or harm to the pursuing LEO.

Or just chance.

"Chance" for an LEO discharging his weapon 6 times on an unarmed individual but though luck for the now dead individual.

I am not sure how "chance" would somehow exonerate a use of force already defined as "excessive" by several experts with backgrounds in Law Enforcement.

Under combat conditions the typical trained shooter will be doing well to hit the torso, let alone a small target deep within the body.

To my knowledge Law Enforcement Officers should NOT be confused for military personnel trained to respond in a combat situation to armed enemies who do present a threat of death or harm to the said military personnel in a combat situation.

What you seem to be attempting to do here is to validate and justify the use of lethal force and resulting death of Michael Brown. That may not be your intention, but in this specific case, there was NO justification for Officer Wilson to shoot to kill. It is undeniable that he shot Brown to kill.

At this point it looks like a justified shoot.

Expand how it would be justified based on conclusive evidence. Reminder : you would have to present evidence which can only lead to the conclusion that even though Brown was unarmed, Officer Wilson acted in self defense based on his reasonably assessing that his life was in danger of death or harm or other persons' were, therefor his discharging his weapon to prevent death or harm to his person or other persons up to the final shot which was meant to kill. Reality check : the onus is on the Police Depart. to submit such evidence. So far, they only have what Officer Wilson told them. Whose best interest is certainly not to admit that he acted on anger versus acting on self defense.

The majority of the witnesses are either mistaken or lying--which comes as no surprise to me. When a black person is shot by the police you can count on proclamations of his innocence, that he wouldn't hurt anyone, that he didn't pose a threat. If there are witnesses you can generally count on them saying such stuff.

Rarely do the claims hold up to the test of time.

Let me remind you that when it comes to young Black men shot by the Police or a self appointed "vigilante" type, it has been duly observed on this board that the trend by some posters is to use words such as "thug" and other derogatory epithets to portray the dead Black young male. And I am absolutely positive that I am not alone in that observation and a long term one.

It appears that a dead Black young male is to be automatically suspected of being a criminal deserving to be shot and killed.

 

[laughing dog]

I believe most people think it worse when a trained officer of the law kills an unarmed person than a criminal, regardless of the relative frequencies of the events.

I agree it's worse, but there will always be shitty unqualified members as part of any large group, as no screening process and training is perfect to reduce the chance of such to zero. There are quite a few individuals who are employed in law enforcement across the nation as a whole.

The more relevant questions: are there too many shitty unqualified police officers who display detectable elements of racism when carrying out their duties and, if so, are sufficient efforts being made to reduce their numbers? What is the criteria to determine if sufficient efforts are in fact being made? What is the tolerable threshold for the proportion of shitty unqualified law enforcement members given that perfection/zero such members in any large group is not a realistic possibility as mentioned above, and how close/far away are we currently to this threshold?

One of those shitty unqualified officer is too many. And, once one is discovered, he/she ought to be quickly either bounced or kept off duty until he/she is sufficiently retrained.

 

[Axulus]

I agree it's worse, but there will always be shitty unqualified members as part of any large group, as no screening process and training is perfect to reduce the chance of such to zero. There are quite a few individuals who are employed in law enforcement across the nation as a whole.

The more relevant questions: are there too many shitty unqualified police officers who display detectable elements of racism when carrying out their duties and, if so, are sufficient efforts being made to reduce their numbers? What is the criteria to determine if sufficient efforts are in fact being made? What is the tolerable threshold for the proportion of shitty unqualified law enforcement members given that perfection/zero such members in any large group is not a realistic possibility as mentioned above, and how close/far away are we currently to this threshold?

One of those shitty unqualified officer is too many. And, once one is discovered, he/she ought to be quickly either bounced or kept off duty until he/she is sufficiently retrained.

Do you think policies/criteria/training should be implemented to ensure a high probability of zero such members slipping through the cracks? You don't think that any trade-off is too large to achieve zero such unqualified individuals?

I completely agree with your suggestion regarding the response upon discovery.