Pardon me, I Apoligize!

[HeyYou]

Yeah, the video of the cop shooting the guy running AWAY from him in the back, (which, by the way, contradicts his story.....) is pretty damning evidence against him. Though I am curious, how he would explain putting so many shots into a mans' BACK, at range..... as the autopsy most certainly would discover that inconvenient little fact......

[MotoSxorpio]

Yeah, the video of the cop shooting the guy running AWAY from him in the back, (which, by the way, contradicts his story.....) is pretty damning evidence against him. Though I am curious, how he would explain putting so many shots into a mans' BACK, at range..... as the autopsy most certainly would discover that inconvenient little fact......

I agree...

 

A total opposite of the OP. This law officer made a severe misjudgement. You can even see in the video the cop takes half a second to a full second while raising his gun, aiming then pause (he thinks about it)...then eruption. This instance should in no way reflect on the Brown case. For one side, a supreme example could be made. On the other hand, could just enable more eruptions and confrontations.

 

AFAIK, 4 of 8 shots hit the victim in the SC case. Then the cop picks up the spent taser, moves it nearer the victim.

 

Buncha wrong happened here, but this event will put more doubt in the minds of the populace at large. I saw three open carries at Walmart today...

Edited April 13, 2015 by MotoSxorpio

[Daedthr]

 

If pursuing and shooting an unarmed teenager six times is policing by the book, the book needs some serious revisions. Regardless of whether or not Brown was fleeing or charging, gunshots to the head should not be condoned. Either police officers should be trained to a degree that they can adequately incapacitate a suspect without use of deadly force, or they, like the rest of America, should not be given the right to bear arms. Personally, I don't understand why policemen patrolling the streets with the power to end any lives they wish to appeals to anybody, law enforcement? - YES. Judge, jury and executioner? - NO.

 

Whether or not you believe Wilson is morally responsible for the shooting, you'll find it very hard deny that the entire ordeal represents a failure of the American Policing system. Either policemen need to be trained to incapacitate suspects without causing a fatality, guns need to to be prohibited from the force (and therefore the rest of America, warranting a change to the constitution), or they need to undergo more stringent psychiatric tests to test their ability to make sensible decisions under pressure.

 

It's also worth noting that regardless of your outlook upon the shooting, it CANNOT be denied that there is a serious lack of rapport between many State police forces and the black communities they're meant to protect. After seeing events such as these:

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1447945/video-police-shoot-dead-mentally-ill-man

 

I'd go so far as to say that racism can become institutionalized in various police forces, due to a failure to understand that the police serve the people and that in order for them to get given the respect they need to effectively enforce law and order, they first need to comply to the expectations of those they serve.

You have zero understanding of that of which you speak. The police ARE trained..... to aim for center mass. Given that he cranked out six or eight shots in quick succession, it's a wonder that as many of them hit as did. Take a look at what happened in New York City. The police all started banging away at the guy with the gun, and NINE bystanders were hit. (that was just stupid, I don't think the actually target had even pulled his gun.... but, I may be wrong there.)

 

In the situation the officer found himself in with Mr. Brown, he did EXACTLY as he was trained. The ONLY thing Mr. Brown would have had to do to survive this experience, would have been to not walk down the middle of the road, when the officer told him. That would have ended the situation. The cop wasn't aware that the 'gentle giant' had just forcibly robbed a store......

 

Michael Brown got PRECISELY what he deserved. He was stupid, and it got him dead. So much the better for the gene pool.

 

 

I make two concessions:

 

1. I am not knowledgeable of how the American police is taught to react to incidents like this, I did not know about "Aiming for centre mass". I therefore accept that Wilson was doing his job how he has been trained to do it, and I would not hold him morally accountable for the killing.

 

2. I understand that Michael Brown was foolish, and that ultimately he is responsible for the consequences of his own actions.

 

However the fact that Wilson followed his training doesn't justify what he was trained to do.

 

I accept that under the circumstances Wilson acted according to protocol, but the fact that the protocol can result in a death when at some point in the incident Mr. Brown ran 30ft away, I find very difficult to justify.

 

In a scenario such as this would it not be wiser to call for police back up than to pursue Mr. Brown on foot, when it has already been proven that the latter is confrontational, and so pursuit would likely lead to further confrontation?

 

My point is, there are other options when it comes to policing like this, and I know there are because I live in a country in which the police do not carry firearms, and manage to keep law and order to much the same standard as American police do, without unnecessary deaths like this occurring.

 

Again, I accept that in the circumstances I do not hold Wilson responsible, and that I do hold Brown responsible, but if anything can be done to prevent deaths in the pursuit of law enforcement, then why shouldn't it be? It seems to me that the idea of police no longer carrying firearms is a good one, because as Aurielius says:

 

 

I dare you to stand still while someone charges that outweighs you by over a hundred pounds.

 

Well then of course you are going to shoot! But if you do not have the gun in the first place, you can't, so take away the gun and prevent the death! Don't tell me it doesn't work, the police of Britain and several other countries have never possessed firearms, and our crime rates are lower than yours: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

 

Therefore the point still stands that there is an issue in the policing system, if only in terms of being able to carry firearms. I also understand why police currently need to carry firearms, because the right to bear arms in US constitution allows everybody else to. So why not change the Constitution!? I just don't understand how things like this can be justified when national changes CAN BE MADE that would prevent many of them happening, and likely lead to better country anyway. Why does everyone in America need to be able to carry around the power to take a life, in what world does that seem a sensible idea?

 

Therefore I stand by the idea that this incident highlighted an issue in the policing system, and also a National Issue for America, even if it is only the right to bear arms.

 

Though I still don't understand why in a situation like that it might not be wiser to call for backup, though this may be due to some ignorance on my part for how the policing system works in that regard. I also understand that even if that were an option, under the circumstances it may not be one Wilson would consider, as cognitive ability decreases under pressure, but even so that would illuminate the issue that the current policing system presents options that can lead to fatalities more easily than those that don't.

 

So finally I accept that this incident is not necessarily the huge issue the media made it out to be, but I believe it does show the problems that the right to bear arms in a constitution can create for a country and a police force.

 

As for my comments as to the rapport between the black communities and the police forces of many states, I stand by them. I am not saying that all police forces are racist, but I am saying that from the evidence I have there is a very clear lack of understanding between these two groups in many areas, as evidenced by occurrences like the Baltimore riots. I also believe that in the past two year there have been several black deaths related to police action, such as the one I linked in my first post, the death of Freddie Gray and older issues such as this http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wounded-17-year-old-girl-shot-dead-police-knees/

 

On account of these incidents I am not particularly surprised by the response the Ferguson affair had, justified or not.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Daedthr

[HeyYou]

If Wilson hadn't had a gun, HE would be the one that was dead.

 

When seconds count, backup (or, police in general) are only minutes away.

 

It is not in the best interests of society to allow criminals to simply walk away, because the cops are afriad of them. Whose to say Mr. Brown wouldn't go home, and pick up some nice piece of hardware, and see how many cops he could take with him before he was killed/arrested?

 

You obviously don't have any police training, weapons training, military experience..... so, in all reality, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Bear in mind also, that police in the US have significantly larger area to cover, and a lot more people as well. Some of whom, aren't very nice, and don't really care if their weapons are legal or not. We can't keep illegal immigrants out of our country, what makes you think illegal guns would be any better?

[Daedthr]

I don't want to get into hypothetical's with a real situation like this, but I cannot believe that had Wilson not had a gun, he would have died. Wilson struggled with Brown through the window of his car, and some how I find it difficult to believe that even the superhuman some of the media make Brown out to be would have been capable of killing Wilson through the window of his car without a firearm. Furthermore, if Wilson had not had his firearm, would he have really been likely to pursue Brown alone when he was already in the knowledge that Brown was in a conflictual mood, and was larger than the was? I think not, though of course I this is hypothetical so I can only reason based on deductions, but I find it highly unlikely that had Wilson not had the gun, he would have died, as I suspect it would have made him re-consider his choice to pursue Brown in the first place.

 

 

 

 

When seconds count, backup (or, police in general) are only minutes away.

 

When seconds count? Brown had stolen some cigarettes, he wasn't on his way to start a killing spree! Surely it is better for law enforcement to be carried out well, with justice and minimum loss of life, than for it to be done quickly?

 

 

It is not in the best interests of society to allow criminals to simply walk away, because the cops are afriad of them. Whose to say Mr. Brown wouldn't go home, and pick up some nice piece of hardware, and see how many cops he could take with him before he was killed/arrested?

 

Frankly I do not find this argument compelling at all, letting a criminal walk away does not mean letting the criminal get away with the crime. Brown had already been caught on CCTV camera in the shop he had stolen from, so he would have been identifiable, enabling the police to later turn up at his house to take him into custody there, which would have likely resulted in the preservation of the latter's life.

 

Yes, it would be inefficient, but if inefficiencies can save lives, then I'm all for them.

 

As for the second part of what you say, based on hypothetical's like that I could justify the arrest of every pedestrian in the country - "What if that man on the sidewalk is on his way to start a school shooting?!" "What if that woman is on her way to murder her father and claim the life insurance! Better arrest her in case."

 

Justifying a course of action that could lead to a potentially deadly conflict, based on something that the criminal might do in the future is frankly ludicrous. People who get into conflict with the police generally aren't psychopaths or serial killers, they're just angry people, let them go home, cool off a bit and turn up to the house and I suspect most would be a little more affable, then when they're being chased down.

 

Again inefficient, but when lost lives are justified by efficiency, I believe there is a problem.

 

 

 

You obviously don't have any police training, weapons training, military experience..... so, in all reality, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Yes, that is obvious, because I've stated it, and I'm perfectly aware of it thank you. But since when has the fact that I have never been a police officer inhibit my ability to reason, it may mean I have less empirical experience, but frankly experience can lead to bias - who wants to concede that a system they have spent some of their life serving has serious problems? Also the main issue I'm talking about here is the right to bear arms, something which you certainly do not need to have been a policeman for too evaluate.

 

Moreover, I acknowledged my ignorance of police training, so I withdrew the point I first made about training police better, psychiatric testing, etc. but my point about the issue of firearms still stands.

 

 

 

Bear in mind also, that police in the US have significantly larger area to cover, and a lot more people as well. Some of whom, aren't very nice, and don't really care if their weapons are legal or not. We can't keep illegal immigrants out of our country, what makes you think illegal guns would be any better?

 

Yes the US is far larger than the UK in which I live, it also has the 4th largest population in the world (an that's including the entire European Union which is several countries), but the size of a police force will be relative to the population. So yes, you will have a lot more people than other countries, but you'll also have a much larger force as a consequence of your larger population, it's relative, so your force should be no more stretched than any other in theory.

 

Also, people who "aren't very nice" and don't care about gun laws aren't exclusive to the US, we have them too, and our police manage perfectly well without firearms, as do those of many other countries.

 

I understand that laws and legislation aren't going to stop hardcore criminals getting and using firearms, but most of the people who commit crimes aren't hardcore gangsters or thugs, and most crime isn't premeditated. Look at Brown himself, he stole a packet of cigarettes, he wasn't a thug who's occupation was first-degree crime, and in virtually every country in the world petty crime levels like robbery, theft, arson and the like are far higher than levels of serious crime like murder and coercion, just look at the USA:

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls

 

Most of the people the police have to deal with are just idiots who get themselves into trouble because they don't know better, they might get into fights but they're not murderers, they're not the type of people who would actively try to get access to firearms if they were illegal so they could better fulfill criminal enterprise.

 

So of course making guns illegal won't completely remove them from the country just like adding border control won't completely prevent illegal immigration, but making them illegal would dissuade the majority of those who would own them from having them, because most people aren't hardened criminals who break a law to help break more laws, just like adding border control is going to seriously cut down on immigration than were you too simply open your borders.

 

Something else to mention regarding this is that I've heard many a reply along the lines of "Well if most people who own guns now aren't hardened criminals, then what's wrong with them owning guns?" Well the answer to that is that if you give someone power, they feel entitled to use it, and whilst most people are not hardened criminals, most people also do not think rationally when in conflict and would therefore be far more likely to try to kill someone if they had the tools to do so. Someone in such a state of anger would not however be able to just go and get a gun if they were illegal, by the time they'd got anywhere close to even finding out how one might be smuggled or bought on a black market, they'd have probably cooled off.

 

Also a cold war analogy is appropriate here, as people often argue that if everyone has access to firearms then the "playing field" is even, it's no different from civilians and police not carrying firearms. Sure the playing field might be even, but that doesn't justify giving both sides more power, as it'll inevitably lead to more destruction. Take men in a passionate bar fight, they'd be rather hard-pressed to kill the other one without a firearm, so realistically the most damage you'd get are so broken noses and bruises. Now add in guns, the playing field is still supposedly even, but now you could have a fatality on your hands, if not two. It's like the cold war, prior to it both the US and the USSR had huge amounts of bombs, but that didn't cause nearly the amount of panic that occurred when they both had nukes, because while they were still "even" a war between them then would have caused astronomical destruction.

 

I simply do not believe that it is beneficial for everyone in society to have easy access to weaponry that can take lives with ease, because not only does it make conflict more destructive, but it encourages people to use such weaponry in conflict because they have it, and power also tends to encourage conflict.

 

I also understand that such legislation would be very difficult to implement and will never get passed because of a rather silly idolisation of the founding fathers and the constitution that exists in some parts of America. The moment anyone mentions changing it people start getting worked up about ending rights and democracy, when in fact some of those "rights" are more destructive than constructive for society. Also the fact that a solution to a problem is difficult to provide doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist or shouldn't be solved, because if this were true no difficult problem will ever be solved.

 

Then again it will still probably never happen, the arms industry is surrounded by money, and money is paramount to all in US government, but I'm arguing from principle, and in principle I have strong reason to believe the right to bear arms is problematic, is an issue for policing and society in general, and bears much responsibility in allowing events like the shooting of Michael Brown to happen.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Daedthr

[TheVampireDante]

Issue police with high power tranquilizers, rubber rounds and the usual run of tazers and deterrent sprays. Make the lethal firearm less of a "first move" response - and stop letting single cops take on patrol or other duties by themselves, always have at least two.

Could be likely that less officers would be forced to draw their weapon if they weren't alone.

 

You have the first give the warning(s), and have them ready to make use of non-lethal takedown methods tazer/tranqs/sprays/etc - but you also have the secondary officer ready with the lethal equipment in case the situation calls for it.

 

You have reason to suspect someone will be enough of a problem to warrant it, or they openly make themselves a threat - taze them, tranq them and cuff them when able.

[HeyYou]

One of the major problems we have here in this country, (USA) is a lack of money for police. So, while 'theoretically' we should have more cops to cover the area involved, in reality, we actually have fewer. And that number keeps dropping as budgets get stretched more and more. The days of 'two cops per car' are long gone, and not likely to return. When money gets tight, the first thing to get cut are police, and fire department.......

 

Banning private ownership of firearms in the USA is simply unworkable. You (daedthr) come from a society where private ownership of 'weapons' in general has been pretty much a no-no for centuries, which is most certainly not the case here. You have an entirely different mindset on the problem, that is totally alien to most americans. (yes, there are some that would agree with you, but, the vast majority, do not.) If the government ever tried to ban guns in general, it would mean instant revolution here. Hell, Obama couldn't even pass expanded background checks....... What does THAT tell you?

But, debating 'gun control' here, always seems to turn out poorly, so, that subject really shouldn't even be included here.

 

So, getting back to Mr. Brown..... Arrest him at home? Hhhhmmmm.... where do most folks that have guns keep them..... Oh, right, at HOME..... So, cops showing up at his doorstep is no guarantee of him 'coming along quietly', and there is actually an even chance that it would have resulted in MORE deaths, not fewer. Brown was a thug. He was stupid, and it got him dead. I just don't have a problem with that.

[Deleted1205226User]

This gives an interesting view on the subject for a foreigner, like me.

[HeyYou]

Very Dramatic.... but, not really relevant. It wasn't a 'militarized policeman' that shot Brown, it was a uniformed cop, with a pistol. The reaction by the residents there was also somewhat less than intelligent..... The whole "we are mad at the cops, so we are going to loot, and burn our neighborhood" just doesn't make any sense.... yet this is what we see whenever a white cop shoots a black man. Now, I will grant you, in some cases, the cop is most certainly not correct..... yet in others, he is. Each and every time, the COP is portrayed as a jack-booted thug, and the dead guy is depicted as a 'good boy, that just wanted to get home', or some such nonsense.

 

Also, the video of Brown robbing the store, and his treatment of the clerk, WAS relevant, as it speaks to Brown's behavior in general.

 

I would also point out, that Darren Wilson was not charged with ANY crime, the Grand Jury refused to indict him. And the community response? Burn and loot some more of their neighborhood....... But, Mr. Oliver would have us attempt to treat the mod as individuals? Terribly sorry, but when you have a crowd of folks, some of which are tossing rocks, and molotov's, ALL of them are a threat. What did he expect the mayor to do? "If you want to riot, and raise hell, you have to stay home, but, if you are just out for an evening stroll, then you are fine."????? Right, that would work really well....... Somewhere....... Maybe........

 

Sorry Mr. Oliver, but, you don't have a clue either.

[Daedthr]

 

When money gets tight, the first thing to get cut are police, and fire department.......

 

Yeah I understand that, it's similar here too, public services are always cut because it's easy for the government to do so, but this just highlights another issue with the system - a lack of financing. Considering the importance of the police it's something you'd hope governments would prioritise funding on.

 

 

 

Banning private ownership of firearms in the USA is simply unworkable. You (daedthr) come from a society where private ownership of 'weapons' in general has been pretty much a no-no for centuries, which is most certainly not the case here. You have an entirely different mindset on the problem, that is totally alien to most americans. (yes, there are some that would agree with you, but, the vast majority, do not.) If the government ever tried to ban guns in general, it would mean instant revolution here. Hell, Obama couldn't even pass expanded background checks....... What does THAT tell you?

 

Sadly, this is true too, banning private ownership of firearms is just never going to happen with the US now, it's been too long, there's too much money in the business, and money translates very directly to political power over there. This doesn't mean that the principle isn't true though, the argument's I put forward still stand The fact that despite being logically compelling nobody wants to hear them doesn't invalidate the argument, and the principle that giving people access to power like firearms generally does more harm than good.

 

From what I understand a large part of it comes from a lot people having a fit whenever someone mentions changing the constitution that the great "founding fathers" have written. I don't really understand the obsession to be honest, surely the fact that your government constitution was written more than two centuries ago and has undergone relatively little amendment to keep it up to date is not something to be proud of protective of? I think people must believe that whenever anybody tries to re-write or amend it, they're trying to challenge democracy and the political system rather than just keeping it up to date.

 

I also stand by the principle that, despite it being difficult, it should still be attempted. As I said before, if the difficulty of solving a problem dissuades everyone from trying, then the problem will never be solved, so don't let difficulty dissuade.

 

Though frankly America's too far gone for anyone to take notice of this, though the idea still stands.

 

 

 

So, getting back to Mr. Brown..... Arrest him at home? Hhhhmmmm.... where do most folks that have guns keep them..... Oh, right, at HOME..... So, cops showing up at his doorstep is no guarantee of him 'coming along quietly', and there is actually an even chance that it would have resulted in MORE deaths, not fewer. Brown was a thug. He was stupid, and it got him dead. I just don't have a problem with that.

 

Please, most people do not simply shoot a policeman for turning up on a doorstep. Also Brown was 18, it wasn't his house, he lived with his parents, and no-body that young still living in their parents house is going to have the audacity to go and steal their parent's gun and shoot a policeman walking up to their front door.

 

I mean sure, there is no guarantee of him coming along quietly, but when policemen turn up to most family houses to tell the parents their son has broken the law, the normally reaction is shock, disappointment and surprise, not running upstairs for the gun in the desk draw!

 

Also considering what this article -

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730153/A-kid-broken-home-beat-odds-to-college-A-rapper-sang-smoking-weed-feds-A-violent-robbery-suspect-caught-shocking-video-just-real-Michael-Brown.html

 

- says about his mother being "constantly on him" to get him into college, she's the type of woman who cares about her child, their aspirations and their actions, so if police turn up to the doorstep to tell her that her son just shoplifted, she's probably a little more likely to listen to them and talk about the consequences with him and Brown, than to tell her son to go fetch daddy's gun and take some potshots, hmm?

 

Also it really doesn't take much to see that someone pumped full of adrenaline, running away after shoplifting and being pursued by the police is far more likely to get into a conflict than someone in a familiar place, with family around them, in a house in which they are not the dominant force.

 

 

 

Brown was a thug. He was stupid, and it got him dead. I just don't have a problem with that.

 

Yeah he did a stupid thing, you do stupid things, I do stupid things, everyone does stupid things, I still think it's tragic that what he did cost him is life, when I find it very hard to believe he was the evil person you're making him seem like. Who knows how he was feeling that day, who knows how you might be feeling when you're next stopped by the police, stupid decisions resulting in death is not something anyone can advocate, because the truth is nobody is any more fallible than anybody else, expressions of this fallibility might be different and have varying magnitudes of consequence, but justifying death because of somebody being "stupid" is not an appropriate foundation for society, and it is something you should have a problem with.

 

 

Issue police with high power tranquilizers, rubber rounds and the usual run of tazers and deterrent sprays. Make the lethal firearm less of a "first move" response - and stop letting single cops take on patrol or other duties by themselves, always have at least two.

Could be likely that less officers would be forced to draw their weapon if they weren't alone.

 

You have the first give the warning(s), and have them ready to make use of non-lethal takedown methods tazer/tranqs/sprays/etc - but you also have the secondary officer ready with the lethal equipment in case the situation calls for it.

 

You have reason to suspect someone will be enough of a problem to warrant it, or they openly make themselves a threat - taze them, tranq them and cuff them when able.

 

This to me sounds like a far better and more considerate system than that of giving all policemen lethal rounds, even if it doesn't completely remove the issue of firearms, it means that they'll be less prominent in moments of conflict, which is when they're most problematic.

 

 

 

Overall I believe the Shooting of Brown was tragic, as is any situation that involves or warrants death, because all situations such as this show a failing of society at multiple levels. In this case I believe it shows a failure of society to create an environment in which people can thrive (considering the neighbourhood Brown was from), a failure to evaluate whether or nor the equipping of firearms is beneficial or not, and as brought up by you - a failure to appropriately finance the parts of society that matter the most which in this instance is the police force.