Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   St. Louis City Police Chief Sam Dotson sadly gives a lesson in how to handle an officer involved shooting with a direct detailed account of another shooting   (nbcnews.com) divider line 582
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

12418 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2014 at 9:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



582 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-20 08:16:05 AM  

dropdfun: namatad: dropdfun: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

What the f*ck is wrong with these cops? Is there an interest on the part of some cops to CREATE a riot? Are they completely stupid, or should we be investigating a conspiracy?

Sometimes I wonder if some of you are living in the real world and or are aware of how it works. Someone comes at me with a knife from a distance of 20ft or less well then sorry, I'm plugging em with as many .45 rounds as it takes to stop the threat. A knife is a deadly weapon, you don't respond to a threat of deadly force with a lower level of response. No wonder the tv is full of so many idiots espousing so many out of this world ideas of how things should be played out, they are retarded to how things really work.

you left out about 9,001 different things that you COULD also do, that would avoid the guy with the knife touching you ...

running away
getting in your car and locking the door and driving away
walking to the other side of your car or any other large object and never letting him get within arms reach
RUNNING AWAY

the idea that the only option is to KILL the obviously mentally deranged man is BULLshiat
pretend that the person with the knife is you mother/wife/daughter
what would you do then?
blaze away still??

I'm sorry Sir/Mam but running away is not an option some times, especially when it is you the tax payer that is footing the bill for the safety provided under such cirmumstances. It takes about 21 feet to see and understand and then for muscle memory to respond to a threat of someone comming at you with a percieved deadly weapon, such as knife or what have you. For these Officers to have waited untill this guy was closer than 10' speaks volumes about thier state of mind and no matter how you look at it as a law enforcement officer these poor people went above and beyound what they should have regarding thier safety.The tards such as yourself are thinking that this makes no sense, this makes no sense since I could maricauously pull out a tazer, even if one wasnt issued to myself (belive it or not but there are a shat ton of agencies/forces that dont issue these to everyone) and then tazer this individual with 50,000 volts like I was faster then blue lightning!!

Sorry but that is not the real world and those that dont understand it and or take the time to read up on the actual science and documention of such things are fricken retarded when they espouse, well retarded and dumb and frickien stupid responses to said realities.


Not to mention a police officer called to a scene like this is duty bound NOT to run away..

Just run away, sure, and then when this crazy person goes and does something terrible to the people that called the cops on him, then what?

I'm SURE that the same folks who are saying that running away is a legitimate option wouldn't biatch or whine one bit....

The police showed remarkable restraint, and actually employed deadly force later than training would indicate.
 
2014-08-20 08:26:49 AM  

namatad: you left out about 9,001 different things that you COULD also do, that would avoid the guy with the knife touching you ...

running away


Yeah, because that's what we want our police to be trained to do - run away.
Sheesh.

Do you even hear yourself?
 
2014-08-20 08:31:56 AM  
For everyone here who thinks I don't understand cops:

My uncle made it all the way to chief of police.
I was taught to drive by an IBI agent.
My best friend's father was a cop for many many years. He gave me this back in the mid '70s:


img.fark.net

THAT'S HOW THEY THINK!
 
2014-08-20 09:04:14 AM  

Gosling: Apparently there is now an effort to identify one nametagless cop in particular that's been roughing up people for a couple nights now.


AnonOps was turning their camera away from people smashing windows and throwing bottles tyring to pretend its not happening or trying to pretend its not agitators in the crowd stirring shiat up.

He also stated that the police are using a cell phone jammer against him so he cant broadcast the truth.....which he conveniently turns his camera away from....know what I mean?
 
2014-08-20 09:18:12 AM  
Those who believe this shooting to be unjustified are encouraged to contact their local legislators and demand new laws stating that the use of deadly force is no longer considered justified against a threat of grievous bodily injury or death. I am certain that you will experience no difficulty in establishing a new standard that declares that persons are forbidden from employing any defensive measure that endangers the life of an unprovoked aggressor who is armed with a deadly weapon.
 
2014-08-20 09:27:32 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-20 10:02:48 AM  

jst3p: Table 1: Use-of-Force Continuum
Suspect resistance Officer use of force
1. No resistance 1. Officer presence
2. Verbal noncompliance 2. Verbal commands
3. Passive resistance 3. Hands-on tactics, chemical spray
4. Active resistance 4. Intermediate weapons: baton, Taser, strikes, nondeadly force
5. Aggressive resistance 5. Intermediate weapons, intensified techniques, nondeadly force
6. Deadly-force resistance 6. Deadly force


Notice Taser shows up well before "deadly force" and the only response to deadly force is deadly force.


Interesting. After actually RTFA, I can't say I would have let the guy get as close as they did. Five feet from a knife is practically getting stabbed already.
 
2014-08-20 10:14:09 AM  

Dictatorial_Flair: jst3p: Notice Taser shows up well before "deadly force" and the only response to deadly force is deadly force.

Interesting. After actually RTFA, I can't say I would have let the guy get as close as they did. Five feet from a knife is practically getting stabbed already.


Well you have to get up close to someone to push people around, and that's their job, right?
 
2014-08-20 10:49:34 AM  
Ok can we address this "taser is the end all be all and would solve all these issues" fallacy?

Here is your general use of force continuum (some departments have a different one to add such things as a dog)   Where do you think a knife is?

www.gunholstersunlimited.com

A Taser would fit into Level 3, maybe the low end of 4

So, regardless, taser v knife would not fit into what all officers are taught.  And before you start with the "well that's what they should be taught" let's see why:

a) tasers are not always effective for many reasons.
  the probes never discharge from the cartridge
  a probe not making contact (getting caught in clothes or just plain missing the target)
  the suspect on certain drugs that negate the effects
  the probes are too close together to actually have a useful effect (such as in a close contact issue like say...someone with a knife)
  some people can just fight through it


so then you have the problem of

b) it takes forever to reload.  Oh shiat it didn't work.  I can either a) try to change out the cartridge b) rip the cartridge off and drive stun them or c) go for a different weapon.  All while the suspect now is even more pissed that you tried to tase him and advancing on you...with a knife.  (see:  21 foot rule)

A guy breaks into your house and has a knife.  You, for reasons I don't want to ask why, have a can of mace, a baseball bat, and a gun right there in front of you.  Which one are you going to grab?  Fundamentally this is what is on a cop's belt.

Oh yeah and on a side note, the armor that cops wear will do very little against a knife.

/that cop has every right to go home that night safe and sound.
 
2014-08-20 10:50:01 AM  

Fish_Fight!: Boo_Guy: Well the guy got what he wanted I guess.  If what the officers say is true.

please tell me you are joking?


I never said I believed them.
 
2014-08-20 11:14:31 AM  

jasonvatch: For everyone here who thinks I don't understand cops:

My uncle made it all the way to chief of police.
I was taught to drive by an IBI agent.
My best friend's father was a cop for many many years. He gave me this back in the mid '70s:


[img.fark.net image 402x522]

THAT'S HOW THEY THINK!


The mid-70s was 40 years ago, dipshiat. It was also the farking 70s. You know, before racism was really considered such a Bad Thing. Not only do you not understand cops, you don't understand basic concepts like the passage of time.

There can certainly still be racist cops today, but most of today's cops weren't even alive in the 70s. You can't hold up something like that as an example of "how they think." Do you think the US Army is still sitting around waiting to fight the Soviets?

Also, you and whoever taught you about tasers are idiots. This has been mentioned in the thread already, but tasers are not a substitute for guns, they're a substitute for beating the shiat out of someone.
 
2014-08-20 11:19:37 AM  

DrExplosion: Also, you and whoever taught you about tasers are idiots. This has been mentioned in the thread already, but tasers are not a substitute for guns, they're a substitute for beating the shiat out of someone.


You mean like if someone is unarmed?
 
2014-08-20 11:57:45 AM  

MaliFinn: DrExplosion: Also, you and whoever taught you about tasers are idiots. This has been mentioned in the thread already, but tasers are not a substitute for guns, they're a substitute for beating the shiat out of someone.

You mean like if someone is unarmed?


If by "unarmed" you mean "not advancing on you with a knife" then yes. That would be an appropriate time to use a taser. If he's using deadly force, though, it's best to respond in kind, like these cops did.

Of course, someone who is unarmed can still put themselves on the "deadly force" end of the spectrum. Basically any time a cop is losing a fight, it's turning lethal. Thus, a man of Mike Brown's size is incapable of using force against police without it being considered deadly, unless the cop is also a heavyweight boxing champ or something.
 
2014-08-20 12:15:53 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Ok can we address this "taser is the end all be all and would solve all these issues" fallacy?

Here is your general use of force continuum (some departments have a different one to add such things as a dog)   Where do you think a knife is?

[www.gunholstersunlimited.com image 350x322]

A Taser would fit into Level 3, maybe the low end of 4

So, regardless, taser v knife would not fit into what all officers are taught.  And before you start with the "well that's what they should be taught" let's see why:

a) tasers are not always effective for many reasons.
  the probes never discharge from the cartridge
  a probe not making contact (getting caught in clothes or just plain missing the target)
  the suspect on certain drugs that negate the effects
  the probes are too close together to actually have a useful effect (such as in a close contact issue like say...someone with a knife)
  some people can just fight through it


so then you have the problem of

b) it takes forever to reload.  Oh shiat it didn't work.  I can either a) try to change out the cartridge b) rip the cartridge off and drive stun them or c) go for a different weapon.  All while the suspect now is even more pissed that you tried to tase him and advancing on you...with a knife.  (see:  21 foot rule)

A guy breaks into your house and has a knife.  You, for reasons I don't want to ask why, have a can of mace, a baseball bat, and a gun right there in front of you.  Which one are you going to grab?  Fundamentally this is what is on a cop's belt.

Oh yeah and on a side note, the armor that cops wear will do very little against a knife.

/that cop has every right to go home that night safe and sound.


This is what I was referring to about training last night. The problem is level 3 and 4 are getting skipped in situations where the person is unarmed. In Mike Brown's case, there was no indication that he was a threat to the community at large even if he was in an altercation with the officer. He didn't have to (supposedly) yell FREEZE (with a broken jaw), then start firing when MB kept running.
 
2014-08-20 12:46:33 PM  

DrExplosion: The mid-70s was 40 years ago, dipshiat. It was also the farking 70s. You know, before racism was really considered such a Bad Thing. Not only do you not understand cops, you don't understand basic concepts like the passage of time.


Oh, good. There's no more racism.

This was in 1998

What the article doesn't mention is the 4 white cops - out of uniform - driving the alleys in a car with no plates or registration. I'm sure they weren't looking for a black person to beat up, just out for a drive. I suspect you can list the black people you know on the fingers of one elbow.

And the cops are combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Their response is based on habits that kept them alive in a war. And most were raised by cops.

Racists raise racists. Somehow, my mother managed to be the only non-racist out of all the rest of the family. So I don't automatically assume all black people are shiftless, lazy, murdering  rapists on drugs.
 
2014-08-20 01:14:59 PM  

DrExplosion: MaliFinn: DrExplosion: Also, you and whoever taught you about tasers are idiots. This has been mentioned in the thread already, but tasers are not a substitute for guns, they're a substitute for beating the shiat out of someone.

You mean like if someone is unarmed?

If by "unarmed" you mean "not advancing on you with a knife" then yes. That would be an appropriate time to use a taser. If he's using deadly force, though, it's best to respond in kind, like these cops did.

Of course, someone who is unarmed can still put themselves on the "deadly force" end of the spectrum. Basically any time a cop is losing a fight, it's turning lethal. Thus, a man of Mike Brown's size is incapable of using force against police without it being considered deadly, unless the cop is also a heavyweight boxing champ or something.


If it really is a judgment call in that respect, then it is less of an issue about how dangerous someone appears to be and more about the department's negligence of employing someone who is unable to reasonably defend themselves without shooting people in the head.
 
2014-08-20 02:33:49 PM  

jasonvatch: DrExplosion: The mid-70s was 40 years ago, dipshiat. It was also the farking 70s. You know, before racism was really considered such a Bad Thing. Not only do you not understand cops, you don't understand basic concepts like the passage of time.

Oh, good. There's no more racism.


I like how you cut my post short so you could pretend not to notice that literally the next thing I said was "there can certainly still be racist cops today." I also like how you act like there is no middle ground between Apartheid and and the complete absence of racism. I never said or implied that there was no more racism, but there is substantially less racism than there used to be. Many things that were considered acceptable in the 70's are no longer considered acceptable, and you're a moron if you think things are exactly the same as they were back then.

This was in 1998

What the article doesn't mention is the 4 white cops - out of uniform - driving the alleys in a car with no plates or registration. I'm sure they weren't looking for a black person to beat up, just out for a drive. I suspect you can list the black people you know on the fingers of one elbow.


Nice attempt at an ad hominem, but you missed your mark. It's a safe enough bet for most white people, though, so I'll try to help you out a biatchange it from "black people I know" to "black people I consider close friends" and don't include my black family members, then the list will (barely) fit on one hand. How about you? Does your black friend appreciate you taking pity on him?

And the cops are combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Their response is based on habits that kept them alive in a war. And most were raised by cops.

If they're combat veterans, they've probably served with a number of black people. Hating blacks is not a habit that kept them alive in war.

Racists raise racists. Somehow, my mother managed to be the only non-racist out of all the rest of the family. So I don't automatically assume all black people are shiftless, lazy, murdering  rapists on drugs.

Unfortunately, you still seem to have picked up the bigotry genes from the rest of your family. You don't even realize that the logic you're using is exactly the same as the logic used by racists, do you?


MaliFinn: If it really is a judgment call in that respect, then it is less of an issue about how dangerous someone appears to be and more about the department's negligence of employing someone who is unable to reasonably defend themselves without shooting people in the head.


Are you really saying that every cop should be able to handle someone who is 6'4" and nearly 300 lbs? Or people even bigger than that? What if the big guy knows karate, and he's on drugs that make him immune to pain? Not being able to beat someone like that without using a weapon does not make you "unable to reasonably defend" yourself. Being able to reasonably defend yourself means that you can handle most threats. For the outliers, you have a gun.

You could make it a requirement that every cop be at least 6'2" and a lean 250 lbs, then spend years training each of them in martial arts, or you could realize that it's completely unrealistic to expect every cop to be able to beat every non-cop in a fistfight. Even then, Mike Brown would have had two inches and nearly fifty pounds on our hypothetical supercop. Try fighting someone who has that kind of size advantage on you some time - even if you're a kung fu master and the other guy has never thrown a punch before in his life, all he has to do is get a bit lucky. If he happens to know what he's doing in a fight, you don't really have much of a chance.

No matter how badass you are, there's always someone better. Guns are a great equalizer.
 
2014-08-20 02:41:41 PM  

DrExplosion: Malifinn: If it really is a judgment call in that respect, then it is less of an issue about how dangerous someone appears to be and more about the department's negligence of employing someone who is unable to reasonably defend themselves without shooting people in the head.

Are you really saying that every cop should be able to handle someone who is 6'4" and nearly 300 lbs? Or people even bigger than that? What if the big guy knows karate, and he's on drugs that make him immune to pain? Not being able to beat someone like that without using a weapon does not make you "unable to reasonably defend" yourself. Being able to reasonably defend yourself means that you can handle most threats. For the outliers, you have a gun.


I'm saying that if every time a cop encounters a citizen who is bigger than them they are left with no option but to murder them, then this is a system that doesn't work.  And it isn't the fault of someone being big, it's the fault of the nutsack who enters the situation with no viable skill other than firearm accuracy.
 
2014-08-20 03:24:16 PM  

MaliFinn: I'm saying that if every time a cop encounters a citizen who is bigger than them they are left with no option but to murder them, then this is a system that doesn't work.  And it isn't the fault of someone being big, it's the fault of the nutsack who enters the situation with no viable skill other than firearm accuracy.


The only other possible system is to have our cops be completely helpless if they're alone against a really big guy. Unarmed training can make a big difference, but it isn't a magic cure-all. Personally, I can reasonably handle an opponent with about 80 lbs on me if he's untrained, which most folks are. If he knows what he's doing, on the other hand, then even a difference of 20 lbs is extremely difficult to overcome. There is no way around this with the technology we currently have available. When you're up against a man who has a hundred pounds on you, there really isn't much you can do without a weapon, and until we invent phasers we can set to stun, firearms are the most reliable thing we have. If you have any other ideas, let's hear them.

Also, the word "murder" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. If you attack a cop and he shoots you, it isn't the cop's fault, it's the fault of the nutsack who assaulted a man with a gun. It isn't your fault for being big, it's your fault for violently attacking someone.

(FWIW, I can't say if I think the shooting of Mike Brown was actually justified, I've just been using him as an example of size. If the cop's story is true, then it was justified, and Mike Brown was certainly big enough to require shooting in that case. But if the Ferguson PD told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside to check)
 
2014-08-20 03:36:53 PM  

DrExplosion: MaliFinn: I'm saying that if every time a cop encounters a citizen who is bigger than them they are left with no option but to murder them, then this is a system that doesn't work.  And it isn't the fault of someone being big, it's the fault of the nutsack who enters the situation with no viable skill other than firearm accuracy.

The only other possible system is to have our cops be completely helpless if they're alone against a really big guy. Unarmed training can make a big difference, but it isn't a magic cure-all. Personally, I can reasonably handle an opponent with about 80 lbs on me if he's untrained, which most folks are. If he knows what he's doing, on the other hand, then even a difference of 20 lbs is extremely difficult to overcome. There is no way around this with the technology we currently have available. When you're up against a man who has a hundred pounds on you, there really isn't much you can do without a weapon, and until we invent phasers we can set to stun, firearms are the most reliable thing we have. If you have any other ideas, let's hear them.

Also, the word "murder" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. If you attack a cop and he shoots you, it isn't the cop's fault, it's the fault of the nutsack who assaulted a man with a gun. It isn't your fault for being big, it's your fault for violently attacking someone.

(FWIW, I can't say if I think the shooting of Mike Brown was actually justified, I've just been using him as an example of size. If the cop's story is true, then it was justified, and Mike Brown was certainly big enough to require shooting in that case. But if the Ferguson PD told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside to check)


If a person is so big that you apparently have no option but to shoot to kill, then why would you approach him?  Knowing that this is your only option, you are encouraging a deadly confrontation.  Knowing this in advance, and having sufficient training to know this is the likely outcome, then this is premeditated.

This cop chose to create a situation that could only be resolved with murder.  There are a lot of questions about this situation, but the biggest one I have is why this cop chased down a man who was bigger than him with only a gun, expecting it to end differently?

I'm pretty sure he didn't expect it to end differently.  And if he was the least bit hesitant about killing him or the least bit concerned about the victim's life expectancy, he might have at least hesitated before shooting him the sixth time.
 
2014-08-20 03:37:25 PM  

MaliFinn: DrExplosion: Malifinn: If it really is a judgment call in that respect, then it is less of an issue about how dangerous someone appears to be and more about the department's negligence of employing someone who is unable to reasonably defend themselves without shooting people in the head.

Are you really saying that every cop should be able to handle someone who is 6'4" and nearly 300 lbs? Or people even bigger than that? What if the big guy knows karate, and he's on drugs that make him immune to pain? Not being able to beat someone like that without using a weapon does not make you "unable to reasonably defend" yourself. Being able to reasonably defend yourself means that you can handle most threats. For the outliers, you have a gun.

I'm saying that if every time a cop encounters a citizen who is bigger than them they are left with no option but to murder them, then this is a system that doesn't work.  And it isn't the fault of someone being big, it's the fault of the nutsack who enters the situation with no viable skill other than firearm accuracy.


Uh, wow.

How about this - we expect other people to follow the law and not commit forcible felonies, particularly assaulting police, rather than expect the police to be your treat someone attacking them with a knife like precious china they need to wrap in bubble wrap?

Seems pretty simple to me, but then again I've always be big into things like being polite, law abiding, and personally responsible for my own actions. I can honestly say that in the normal course of events, I cannot imagine one scenario where I would attack a police officer with a knife, nor one scenario where a police officer wouldn't be justified in shooting me dead if I did so.
 
2014-08-20 03:55:43 PM  

Elegy: MaliFinn: DrExplosion: Malifinn: If it really is a judgment call in that respect, then it is less of an issue about how dangerous someone appears to be and more about the department's negligence of employing someone who is unable to reasonably defend themselves without shooting people in the head.

Are you really saying that every cop should be able to handle someone who is 6'4" and nearly 300 lbs? Or people even bigger than that? What if the big guy knows karate, and he's on drugs that make him immune to pain? Not being able to beat someone like that without using a weapon does not make you "unable to reasonably defend" yourself. Being able to reasonably defend yourself means that you can handle most threats. For the outliers, you have a gun.

I'm saying that if every time a cop encounters a citizen who is bigger than them they are left with no option but to murder them, then this is a system that doesn't work.  And it isn't the fault of someone being big, it's the fault of the nutsack who enters the situation with no viable skill other than firearm accuracy.

Uh, wow.

How about this - we expect other people to follow the law and not commit forcible felonies, particularly assaulting police, rather than expect the police to be your treat someone attacking them with a knife like precious china they need to wrap in bubble wrap?

Seems pretty simple to me, but then again I've always be big into things like being polite, law abiding, and personally responsible for my own actions. I can honestly say that in the normal course of events, I cannot imagine one scenario where I would attack a police officer with a knife, nor one scenario where a police officer wouldn't be justified in shooting me dead if I did so.


Follow the discussion.  The point is not about cops doing their jobs, it's about someone putting themselves into a stupid situation.  The cop could have done anything.  He could have got on the radio.  He could have gone back and reviewed the store video, identified the man, and made a home visit with a warrant.  He could have followed in a vehicle and waited for assistance.  But he didn't.  He decided that he needed to immediately chase down a man larger than him and create a violent confrontation in which his only option to equalize the suspect's strength was by using deadly force.

Cops are people doing tough jobs.  Stupid cops are people making a tough job even harder.
 
2014-08-20 04:00:16 PM  

MaliFinn: If a person is so big that you apparently have no option but to shoot to kill, then why would you approach him?  Knowing that this is your only option, you are encouraging a deadly confrontation.  Knowing this in advance, and having sufficient training to know this is the likely outcome, then this is premeditated.

This cop chose to create a situation that could only be resolved with murder.  There are a lot of questions about this situation, but the biggest one I have is why this cop chased down a man who was bigger than him with only a gun, expecting it to end differently?

I'm pretty sure he didn't expect it to end differently.  And if he was the least bit hesitant about killing him or the least bit concerned about the victim's life expectancy, he might have at least hesitated before shooting him the sixth time.


The situation could be resolved peacefully if the big guy didn't turn violent. A better question would be why the big guy attacked a man with a gun, expecting it to end differently.

Police are supposed to confront people. It's their job. Sure, the cop's only option if that situation turns violent is to open fire, but the "victim" as you're calling him is the one who chooses to turn the situation violent. He can avoid being shot by simply choosing not to attack the man with a badge and a gun. In this scenario, the cop is the real victim, because he was assaulted after approaching someone nonviolently. He defends himself by shooting his attacker. Not saying that this is definitely what happened with Mike Brown, but at this point we're talking about hypothetical cops who are following the rules. The big guy in this scenario doesn't even need to be completely cooperative to avoid getting shot, he just needs to have the common sense not commit a violent felony in front of a police officer.

And stop thinking Hollywood is the real world. I once shot a man six times and he kept coming. It took another four to take him down. Sometimes one bullet is enough, sometimes it isn't. If shooting someone once is justified, then you keep shooting them until they stop moving.
 
2014-08-20 04:05:23 PM  

DrExplosion: MaliFinn: If a person is so big that you apparently have no option but to shoot to kill, then why would you approach him?  Knowing that this is your only option, you are encouraging a deadly confrontation.  Knowing this in advance, and having sufficient training to know this is the likely outcome, then this is premeditated.

This cop chose to create a situation that could only be resolved with murder.  There are a lot of questions about this situation, but the biggest one I have is why this cop chased down a man who was bigger than him with only a gun, expecting it to end differently?

I'm pretty sure he didn't expect it to end differently.  And if he was the least bit hesitant about killing him or the least bit concerned about the victim's life expectancy, he might have at least hesitated before shooting him the sixth time.

The situation could be resolved peacefully if the big guy didn't turn violent. A better question would be why the big guy attacked a man with a gun, expecting it to end differently.

Police are supposed to confront people. It's their job. Sure, the cop's only option if that situation turns violent is to open fire, but the "victim" as you're calling him is the one who chooses to turn the situation violent. He can avoid being shot by simply choosing not to attack the man with a badge and a gun. In this scenario, the cop is the real victim, because he was assaulted after approaching someone nonviolently. He defends himself by shooting his attacker. Not saying that this is definitely what happened with Mike Brown, but at this point we're talking about hypothetical cops who are following the rules. The big guy in this scenario doesn't even need to be completely cooperative to avoid getting shot, he just needs to have the common sense not commit a violent felony in front of a police officer.

And stop thinking Hollywood is the real world. I once shot a man six times and he kept coming. It took another four to take him down. Sometimes one bullet is en ...


He didn't have to confront him alone, he didn't have to confront him immediately, and he didn't have to confront him in a manner than encouraged a violent conflict.

I have no problem with cops.  Actually, I like cops a lot.  I have a problem with stupid people.
 
2014-08-20 04:07:24 PM  

MaliFinn: Follow the discussion.  The point is not about cops doing their jobs, it's about someone putting themselves into a stupid situation.  The cop could have done anything.  He could have got on the radio.  He could have gone back and reviewed the store video, identified the man, and made a home visit with a warrant.  He could have followed in a vehicle and waited for assistance.  But he didn't.  He decided that he needed to immediately chase down a man larger than him and create a violent confrontation in which his only option to equalize the suspect's strength was by using deadly force.

Cops are people doing tough jobs.  Stupid cops are people making a tough job even harder.


Okay, I find this post much less objectionable than the previous one. I stand by what I just said, but you're right that it would probably be wiser to radio for backup when going after someone like that, just in case it goes south. However, failure to do so is not murder. It's not even negligence. The big guy still chooses whether or not he gets shot.
 
2014-08-20 04:17:52 PM  

DrExplosion: MaliFinn: Follow the discussion.  The point is not about cops doing their jobs, it's about someone putting themselves into a stupid situation.  The cop could have done anything.  He could have got on the radio.  He could have gone back and reviewed the store video, identified the man, and made a home visit with a warrant.  He could have followed in a vehicle and waited for assistance.  But he didn't.  He decided that he needed to immediately chase down a man larger than him and create a violent confrontation in which his only option to equalize the suspect's strength was by using deadly force.

Cops are people doing tough jobs.  Stupid cops are people making a tough job even harder.

Okay, I find this post much less objectionable than the previous one. I stand by what I just said, but you're right that it would probably be wiser to radio for backup when going after someone like that, just in case it goes south. However, failure to do so is not murder. It's not even negligence. The big guy still chooses whether or not he gets shot.


OR DID HE?

that's the point.
 
2014-08-20 04:59:53 PM  

MaliFinn: DrExplosion: MaliFinn: If a person is so big that you apparently have no option but to shoot to kill, then why would you approach him?  Knowing that this is your only option, you are encouraging a deadly confrontation.  Knowing this in advance, and having sufficient training to know this is the likely outcome, then this is premeditated.

This cop chose to create a situation that could only be resolved with murder.  There are a lot of questions about this situation, but the biggest one I have is why this cop chased down a man who was bigger than him with only a gun, expecting it to end differently?

I'm pretty sure he didn't expect it to end differently.  And if he was the least bit hesitant about killing him or the least bit concerned about the victim's life expectancy, he might have at least hesitated before shooting him the sixth time.

The situation could be resolved peacefully if the big guy didn't turn violent. A better question would be why the big guy attacked a man with a gun, expecting it to end differently.

Police are supposed to confront people. It's their job. Sure, the cop's only option if that situation turns violent is to open fire, but the "victim" as you're calling him is the one who chooses to turn the situation violent. He can avoid being shot by simply choosing not to attack the man with a badge and a gun. In this scenario, the cop is the real victim, because he was assaulted after approaching someone nonviolently. He defends himself by shooting his attacker. Not saying that this is definitely what happened with Mike Brown, but at this point we're talking about hypothetical cops who are following the rules. The big guy in this scenario doesn't even need to be completely cooperative to avoid getting shot, he just needs to have the common sense not commit a violent felony in front of a police officer.

And stop thinking Hollywood is the real world. I once shot a man six times and he kept coming. It took another four to take him down. Sometimes one bullet is en ...

He didn't have to confront him alone, he didn't have to confront him immediately, and he didn't have to confront him in a manner than encouraged a violent conflict.

I have no problem with cops.  Actually, I like cops a lot.  I have a problem with stupid people.


A) there's a crazy guy walking around a public street, where others are present, with a knife. You are suggesting that the cop sits in his car and does nothing?

Or, better yet, leaves and makes a home visit?

What happens when the crazy man knifes an innocent bystander? Or, god forbid, a kid?

2) You said he should radio for backup. He did. It was there. There were two officers present on scene when the guy with the knife was shot.

But I get it. You're one of those "the police should pass out hugs and everything will be happier than unicorn farts" type. Sadly, the real world doesn't work like that, but I'll leave you to it.
 
2014-08-20 05:03:26 PM  

DrExplosion: MaliFinn: Follow the discussion.  The point is not about cops doing their jobs, it's about someone putting themselves into a stupid situation.  The cop could have done anything.  He could have got on the radio.  He could have gone back and reviewed the store video, identified the man, and made a home visit with a warrant.  He could have followed in a vehicle and waited for assistance.  But he didn't.  He decided that he needed to immediately chase down a man larger than him and create a violent confrontation in which his only option to equalize the suspect's strength was by using deadly force.

Cops are people doing tough jobs.  Stupid cops are people making a tough job even harder.

Okay, I find this post much less objectionable than the previous one. I stand by what I just said, but you're right that it would probably be wiser to radio for backup when going after someone like that, just in case it goes south. However, failure to do so is not murder. It's not even negligence. The big guy still chooses whether or not he gets shot.


Negligence was probably not the correct word to use because that implies he wasn't doing things he was trained to do.  That's probably not the case.
 
2014-08-20 05:14:55 PM  
So much fail, it's hard to know where to start:

As been said, over, and over and over, at the time of the incident the officer was not even aware Mike Brown was a suspect in the felony that occurred earlier at the store.

That has been used to say that the officers use of force was unreasonable. Now it's being conveniently forgotten so you can cry "WHY did he approach such a dangerous man if the only choice he had if this dangerous man attempted a violent physical assault was to shoot him??"

 It's pretty much indisputable, that the situation spun out of control, and into a confrontation that the officer did not anticipate really quickly. If a serious physical altercation is known to be imminent, an officer is going to call for backup. An arrest isn't a penis length contest; they guy who is Mike Tyson and Geronimo all rolled into one with one officer present will often become a peaceful little lamb when 4 more officers and a canine unit show up. It's funny how that works, but of course such a reaction is ready-made for howls of "Police intimidation" and "overreaction", so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Seriously, you can't farking have it both ways, unless you are implying that police should treat every interaction, no matter how innocuous and petty, with people that are larger than them as a felony stop, calling in backups, canine units, etc... Oh yah, that would go over well, no farkliberals would biatch and whine about that, nosirreee..

Policemen do receive a fair amount of training (and lots of OJT) on how to deal with physically violent people, and police do have some level of physical standards (varies immensely between departments), but it is ridiculous, utterly ludicrous, to expect every officer to be able to physically manhandle every possible attacker. What if Cain Velasquez goes a little funny in the head and goes off on the first lady cop he sees? I guess in farkliberal world that would be her fault if she shot him...

Also, the implication that when faced with a dangerous, potentially violent altercation, that the police should just leave, so utterly stupid (even for fark) that I couldn't believe I read it. They can attempt to disengage and de-escalate, but they are duty bound to control the situation the best they can.
 
2014-08-20 07:32:41 PM  

dforkus: So much fail, it's hard to know where to start:

As been said, over, and over and over, at the time of the incident the officer was not even aware Mike Brown was a suspect in the felony that occurred earlier at the store.

That has been used to say that the officers use of force was unreasonable. Now it's being conveniently forgotten so you can cry "WHY did he approach such a dangerous man if the only choice he had if this dangerous man attempted a violent physical assault was to shoot him??"

 It's pretty much indisputable, that the situation spun out of control, and into a confrontation that the officer did not anticipate really quickly. If a serious physical altercation is known to be imminent, an officer is going to call for backup. An arrest isn't a penis length contest; they guy who is Mike Tyson and Geronimo all rolled into one with one officer present will often become a peaceful little lamb when 4 more officers and a canine unit show up. It's funny how that works, but of course such a reaction is ready-made for howls of "Police intimidation" and "overreaction", so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Seriously, you can't farking have it both ways, unless you are implying that police should treat every interaction, no matter how innocuous and petty, with people that are larger than them as a felony stop, calling in backups, canine units, etc... Oh yah, that would go over well, no farkliberals would biatch and whine about that, nosirreee..

Policemen do receive a fair amount of training (and lots of OJT) on how to deal with physically violent people, and police do have some level of physical standards (varies immensely between departments), but it is ridiculous, utterly ludicrous, to expect every officer to be able to physically manhandle every possible attacker. What if Cain Velasquez goes a little funny in the head and goes off on the first lady cop he sees? I guess in farkliberal world that would be her fault if she shot him...

Also, the implicati ...


The funny thing is i've seen no evidence that the officer made a call for backup. it's all second-hand or "anonymous sources' [fox news was jerking that all over the place] because hey - a single entity with a MASSIVE conflict of interest controls the evidence.

Further, if he had heard on the radio that robbery occured and the suspect was on site, why didn't he take his reservations and wait until he had radioed it in to act.

it REALLY doesnt line up with the whole "derp i heard he was a suspect in mid-shot so i kept unloading" or whatever hogwash that is.
 
2014-08-20 07:40:42 PM  
Change the official story that many times without publishing a statement/record that puts it in writing, people are going to lose trust FAST.

pretty much dont care what really happened to Brown anymore. I care that we've been jerked to heck and back by an agency that could have released far more instead of hedging for time to get their stories straight [which is exactly how i interpret the delay]. From a self-centered POV do i  blame them? Not really. Trust them with the power of life and death in the process of collecting pensions and immunity for their actions?  Nope.

Police accountability as enforced by COTS recording technology can and should change the landscape of law enforcement, and anywhere that transformation isn't underway, you can bet someone likes it that way. For all the obvious reasons.

No justice, no peace - that's the slogan of people that know the choice of "peace" is a false dichotomy in the face of unlimited (and commonly experienced) punitive actions for - in many cases - merely asking about your rights.

Solution: if police dont declare evidence immediately (without having to disclose it publicly, for instance, just publishing a hash which corresponds to the picture/report/etc of that evidence) within 12 hours of receiving it, it shouldn't be admissible. Video evidence (also signed to ensure against tampering without having to release the evidence) should be made available immediately, even automatically. No hash, no case.
 
2014-08-20 07:43:13 PM  
dont even get me started on how the  autopsy performed by the family's request didn't have access to the clothes. They belong to the family, where were they? Oh yeah, more evidence, controlled.
 
Displayed 32 of 582 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report