Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Local rioting and police brutality

49 posts in this topic

Posted

Just two days ago on Saturday, a local 17-year-old was shot and killed by a police officer in the St. Louis area.

 

Supposedly, he and a friend were walking from a QuikTrip (I heard some story about them shoplifting a couple cigars?) and a police officer, from his car, told the boys to walk on the sidewalk, not the street. The two weren't complying, and the police officer grabbed Michael Brown around the neck, and he escaped and started running with his friend. The policeman then got out of his car, ran at them, and shot Brown multiple times. Brown lifted his hands into the air in surrender, and then the policeman shot him another several times. Brown was unarmed, and this was around 2pm in broad daylight. Brown was visiting his grandmother, and was due to leave for college in a couple days.

 

The policeman was put on paid administrative leave. Yesterday, riots broke out; the Quiktrip was looted and set on fire, and several other stores had been looted as well.

 

And you know, they never waited for a trial or anything, but we all know that the policeman wouldn't face consequences for his actions. The last I checked, policemen were supposed to defuse situations, not escalate them. Violence should be the last resort to anything, yet this kid was shot eight times? Later, the policeman said Brown pushed him into his car and tried to take his gun away from him, but that doesn't make any sense--he was two days from going to college. Why would he do something that stupid right before his life gets started? There are multiple eyewitness accounts that disagree. The cop has every reason to lie. etc. etc. Personally, I think the cop is just trying to cover himself, because the story doesn't make any sense. Eight shots was totally unnecessary, even if the kid was armed with like, a knife. One disabling shot, like in the leg, is all it takes. Even if he did struggle for the pistol, he clearly didn't get it. Why shoot an unarmed civilian eight times?

 

So regardless of the actual motives of the rioters, Mike Brown's death was the trigger, and for those who truly wanted some kind of misguided poetic justice for Brown, that's all they felt they could do, even though the QuikTrip had nothing to do with the shooting. They can't raid the police-- those guys have guns, and are very clearly willing to use them when not on camera. So the nearest establishment took the fall. Other stores were raided as well.

 

There are several stories of horrifying police brutality, some with absolutely no justification in any sense. This was in Canada, but hey, did you know the animator for Ed, Edd, n Eddy, Paul Boyd, was shot four times and killed by police while unarmed on the ground in the streets?

 

And like sure, I know all police aren't like this. But more and more cases like this keep happening, and the police are invariably let off the hook. They should be accountable for their actions. It's disgusting that we'll just justify their actions away and sweep everything under the rug. It only gets worse each time police are taught that they can literally get away with murder. With two weeks paid vacation, no less.

T1g likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

One disabling shot, like in the leg, is all it takes.

Okay, I don't know much of anything about the shooting at all, and what little I have heard does make the officer sound guilty, but I don't want to make any judgments without at least making an attempt to research the facts myself. However, I can't leave this alone. The idea that one should try to shoot the leg to disable is a complete myth. It only works in Hollywood, and should never be attempted in real life. For one thing, the leg is a much more difficult target to hit than say, the torso, for a number of reasons.

  • The leg is a much smaller target than the torso.
  • You have to shoot at a downward angle to hit it
  • Legs move around a lot more than torsos.

And if by some chance you do hit the leg, you're still rather likely to damage a major artery and your target will bleed out and die anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

like, regardless, he shouldn't have shot the kid eight times :S I would think being shot even once is enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The police are trained to aim for the center of body mass, so Torso generally. But yeah, there was no reason to just gun this kid down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

From what I have heard, gun training for defusing a situation that requires projectile weapons involves first shooting the least lethal areas of the torso that you can, and then immediately looking for medical attention for that person. Not shooting that person with an entire magazine in a situation that under no circumstances required lethal force, then leaving them in the street for multiple hours.

T1g likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Brown was visiting his grandmother, and was due to leave for college in a couple days.

Just saying: this is not necessary information. It's a very obvious bias trying to put a criminal in a positive light. I'm just saying. Also "we all know the policeman wouldn't face the consequences" is dripping with bias. It's sopping wet. I guess it's not your job to like, report the news, though.

It sucks that the riots happened, though. It begs for "police brutality", though. The idea is to take advantage of chaos and anger and loot shit and burn shit? Like, I hope they all get rifle butts to the teeth. It doesn't matter what the trigger is for rioting. Is there ever a justifiable riot? The people who stole the phones from the cell phone store- were they just acting irrationally out of grief? I can't fathom how anyone can justify rioting. If you are going to act like an animal, or less than an animal, then you should be treated like one. When people are looking for ANY excuse to rob and loot stuff and incite riots and chaos, can you blame the cop for killing on of them?

And yeah, cops are trained to destroy people with guns. It's not a video game where you take out someone's leg and then strategically plan your next attack. People who always try to give advice on non-lethal shots have never fired a weapon. They've also probably never been in a life-threatening situation. Not saying that this one was life threatening but whatevr

I hope I don't sound rude in this. :0

Edited by L.L. Bean's Menswear (see edit history)
Treemotan and Aethix like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To be honest, this whole affair reminds me of the Rodney King riots, in which people went berserk over a video clip of Rodney King getting beaten by the police. However, upon watching the whole video one would see the police tried unsuccessfully to subdue the man with less violent means before resorting to the batons, which is why they were acquitted in the criminal trial. I think we need to wait for more evidence to come out before we judge the officer in question. Although either way, I will never think highly of rioters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

The kid had supposedly shoplifted a couple cigars, which is probably some monetary value less than ten dollars, rather than a human life. And it is somewhat necessary information, because the college bit makes the story not add up. Someone with nothing to live for might resist the police and try to take his weapon away, but not a kid getting ready for college.

 

And no, I don't think "the police officer will not face consequences" is biased at all. It's normal. Everyday. "The police officer will face consequences" is a much more unfounded statement. Paid vacation is the worst punishment I've heard for any police killing. It's not a bias at this poin

I'm not sympathizing with the rioters, really. I think most of the people were taking advantage of the moment. But the kid did not incite a riot. His dying caused tensions that lead to a riot. And guess what! No one died in the riots! Even rioters understand excessive force that leads to death.

 

And sure, it's not a video game, you're not always going to get a perfect shot off on someone, but there are a vast number of ways to handle a situation where someone is running from you, the least logical of which is to shoot them an additional seven times. This kid was unarmed. No weapons. Eyewitnesses claim Brown was retreating and surrendering when he was shot multiple times. I don't care what the hell kind of situation you're in, police that are apparently so tangled up in the constant threat of death should be trained to handle a situation that's life-threatening in a logical manner. People who say he might have been caught up in the moment are pretty much saying it's okay to hire people to be police officers who don't know how to handle a weapon correctly and will shoot to kill when their lives are not actually threatened. They are the ones who do not know what they're talking about.

 

This really pisses me off. I have not heard one actual reason that the police officer should have shot this unarmed teenager eight times, retreating or not. Because some people claim he might have tried to take the gun away from the officer. And obviously, he did not get the gun, and thus was still unarmed.

 

And let's take this a step further. Okay, so maybe an extra shot was needed. But I think after the first shot, the kid might have gone down, slowed down, something. Now the officer is in a position of advantage. Why not THEN shoot the kid's leg, or better yet, take out the taser that he had on him and tase the helpless teenager with the bullet wound? Take that a little further, and let's say the kid takes three shots before going down. That's a good number. Need less excessive force now? No. Apparently not. I'm tired of apologists. Give me a reason to actually think killing this kid was necessary. Don't tell me the police officer didn't know that eight bullet wounds typically means death. Or better yet, look at those videos and tell me that shooting those people were necessary.

 

Law enforcement and authority aren't what I have problems with. What I want is for them to be held accountable for their actions, and to have better standards and training that prevents this kind of thing from happening again. And all the injustices you hear about with the police that go unpunished just sends that same message to all the police officers everywhere: you can get away with literal murder as long as society cares about the victim very little, and as stupid as the riots were, they proved that society will provide repercussions of some kind.

 

By the way, the police have set up a SWAT barricade around the QT and are firing tear gas at some street corner. There's no one over there except the houses where people probably live and are suffering tear gas for no reason. I hope they found a hotel to stay in for the next couple nights.

 

This is an interview with Brown's friend that was with him. It's emotionally laden and one-sided, of course. This story sounds completely made-up and ridiculous, for sure, but so does "the police officer killed a kid, drove off, and didn't notify an ambulance for four hours". There are a lot of bottom lines here, such as "you don't shoot an unarmed kid eight times for any reason" and "you don't, as a law enforcement officer, kill someone, notify absolutely nobody, and then drive off".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is my view on it.

 

We know nothing.  WE don't have enough information either way, we need to let the dust settle and let the FBI do their job.

 

As far as how many times Brown was shot, it is the absolute last factor that should be considered, and is always one that irks me.  Police, military, and CCW holders ( I am one, so I can speak to it) are trained that in a situation where you are drawing you're weapon 1) You are prepared to absolutely destroy, irrevocably, whatever and whoever you are about to point it at,  and 2) You shoot at center mass till the target is down, your slide locks back, or you are otherwise unable to shoot.  In a situation where deadly force is required, you don't know if it will take one bullet or nineteen (the capacity of a glock 17, the most popular service pistol in the US) to neutralize a threat.

 

Now, I am in now way saying that what the officer did was justifiable, but it was protocol when it comes to deadly force.

 

AS far as the ambulance thing, the officer was in a hostile situation, called in the shooting, it is up to dispatch after that.   As far as leaving the body, the moment the officer fired, it was a crime scene, meaning he can not touch or cover anything.  This is for the integrity of the investigation.  It is also protocol for the officer to be brought in, surrender his weapon for ballistics and be placed on leave immediately after any shooting.

 

Finally, as far as shooting to immobilize, I will say I am a relatively good shooter, and I participate in competition.  One thing you must understand is that service pistols are about the least accurate firearms available, truly only accurate at fairly close distances and very susceptible to shakes in the hand or anything that takes away from perfect form.  The first thing that goes out the door  in any situation where adrenaline goes up or there is physical stress is fine motor control.  Here is a visual example.

 

215567_215572558469392_100000499476357_8

 

That was taken while practicing for a USDPSA match.  Basically, I ran about 1/8 mile, then shot at a standing position a ten inch target at about 10 yards.  I do this often, and I still have flyers.

 

Here's the thing, I did not fear for my life when I was doing this.  A leg shot on a moving target while adrenaline is pumping is just not feasible.

 

All said and done, I just want people in Ferguson to stop tearing things down and let the investigation get results, chanting "kill the police" and destroying stores and businesses and patrol vehicles is doing nothing but harm the memory of a young man who was taken too soon, justified or not.

LLmao ?✊? likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was hoping you might come back here to respond to this thread, since you're in the area.

 

I still think it's absolute bullshit that you can't score an immobilizing shot if you ran that long and still managed to hit that target that accurately. I think it's even worse that you think eight shots is okay under any circumstance. You should be trained better to handle stressful situations, since we as a society trust you to use your guns only when necessary. I understand using deadly force when you are clearly about to be horribly murdered because your attacker is trying to end your life, but I do not believe for one minute that an unarmed civilian is that kind of threat. Why are police getting grenade launchers.

 

But there's also audio evidence that the police department wasn't notified after the shooting, which I would think means it isn't a crime scene, and that the guy just walked away thinking he wouldn't get blamed for a ~completely~ bullshit shooting that was reported multiple times by separate people to not have warranted lethal force. Something clearly needs to change if the protocol is to neglect all the other means of detainment that you have and go for the gun first. Especially when a target is running from you.

 

I agree that the riots aren't really doing much, especially because they're looting their own towns, and some people from other towns are looting the same places (white people might I add) but I'm tired of people taking the high roads and trying to justify their way the fuck out of a completely garbage situation. To me it looks like you want to disagree with authority dissenters but you can't own up to that the authority is doing something morally wrong. Like, if I fucking shot you eight times and then left you in the street without calling an ambulance, I would be detained in nearly every civilization on the planet, unless you were a black male and I was a white cop in a black ghetto in the United States? Why is "shoot an unarmed person until that person is down if you feel threatened" a protocol at all? What part of that sounds like it's supposed to happen?

 

I don't care that it's your job, Skippy, or what your job tells you to do. There is a real and serious ethical issue going on here if that's how you're supposed to operate.

Skippy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, it's been bugging me since I am in that area pretty much every weekend, I have dinner at a place that was within the police blockade every saturday.

 

About accuracy, that target is about the size, if not smaller than an average leg in a straight on shot, the shooting took place at a rate of about one round every 3/4 second, with all shots being taken with as near perfect form and breathing as I could possibly produce. When it comes down to it, I was shooting under false stress in a very controlled situation.  There was no threat to my life, I could take my time.  I was not shooting from a seated or compromised position (at least on shot was fired from inside the car), I was also not moving, as police are often trained to move and shoot to cover in a hostile environment when there may be a firearm. (assuming this was not an execution, may have been, again, we don't know.)  All of these things add up to a SIGNIFICANT loss in accuracy, especially when we are talking about a weapon with a sight radius of less than five inches, meaning every degree off is multitudes larger at the target. 

 

So here's the the thing though, Saha.  If using a gun is necessary,  then eight shots may be appropriate.  There are several instances where deadly force was unquestionably justified and it took shots into the double digits to stop a person, there are so many factors in play in what is going to make a person stop that the number of shots is the last thing to be concerned with.  The one shot, one kill thing is very rarely true when we are talking 9MM projectiles.  But that is a whole other many days long study in shot placement, ballistics and physiology.  It may very well have taken eight shots before Brown stopped being ambulatory.  

 

For another example from the other side of the fence, I have a friend who I used to  workout with, he was shot 9 times at point blank range by a man who robbed his house and killed his wife.  The only physical damage he has today is the inability to move his right pinky.

 

As far as shoot until a person is down, if there is an immediate threat to the officer, or other civilians, it is what is protocol.  The fact of the matter is that sometimes, sadly, there comes a kill or be killed moment.  If a mugger is pointing a gun at someone's head about to shoot, then the cop will neutralize that threat, whether it takes one shot or nineteen.  The sad fact of life is that sometimes it happens.  Is it supposed to? no, not at all, I don't like it, I don't want to ever be in that situation, but sometimes it happens.  Not saying that was the case here, but maybe it was.

 

And yes, using a gun should absolutely be something that is not taken lightly, I can tell you, I rarely carry, but I have never, ever even thought about drawing my sidearm when I have.

 

As far as the calling in thing goes, I talked to my old boss, who is a county officer, according to him the call in was made immediately after the shooting, he was on patrol that day and knew about the shooting basically immediately.  That's the information I have right now, but again, everything right now is up in the air, maybe he did, maybe he didn't, like everything else, there are conflicting stories, and with any luck the investigation will find it out.

 

I will say I am very happy the FBI is doing a parallel investigation, because they frankly don't care if some municipal cop keeps his job. 

 

I would say there is a very real and serious ethical issue where people who gun each other down in out cities do so with impunity, cop or not.  There have been at least three other murders in Ferguson/Florrisant  since Brown was killed.  The police weren't involved in those, those suspects are still out there. In fact, the police can't do their jobs and investigate because they can't go anywhere without threats of violence and people kicking and shattering their cars.  

 

 

EDIT:  The grenade launchers are modified to shoot tear gas canisters, and actually do so safer than some of the rifle mounted launchers that they used to use.  

 

Side note on that, actually quite fun to shoot when in a controlled environment.

 

Also, there are times when an unarmed person does meet that qualification, such as when they are able to physically overpower an individual officer, there are groups of people intending to do someone harm, people who are trained and practiced in hand to hand, or people who are attempting to obtain a holstered firearm or get to a weapon.

Edited by Skippy (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well I like that you're being reasonable about it, even though you're more in the thick of it than I am.

 

I do feel sorry for the police officers that have to deal with dissent and hatred because of their uniforms. They didn't kill Brown. All cops aren't bad of course. But these stories get so big because of how completely senseless they are and from the impunity that many police officers enjoy. I'm being a little overly aggressive, because I hate injustice in all its forms, (and because I'm a little drunk, and have lived with minorities and as a minority all my life) and this looks to me like the stories don't add up, and it's not in the cops' favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I try to be reasonable, but I do admit, I have many friends and family who wear the badge, so it's a hard spot for me.

 

I agree, things don't add up, which is why I'm waiting for the investigation to bring to light the facts of the matter, I just think that people are focusing on the wrong things.

 

Like I said, I don't care how many times he was shot, what I do care about is why he was 35 feet from where the patrol car allegedly was and face down.

 

I hate injustice too, but honestly, it's a two way street, I know it's hard, but all sides need to take a strep back and try to sift the facts from the bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah. I wanted to bring that up but thought I might be overstepping my bounds as an amateur investigator. His death posture looks like he was running. Face down, crumpled, blood gushing away from his body. The car was supposedly a lot farther away.

 

On one hand, I hope that the story his friend told was actually lies, because the story sounds like that cop was an actual psychopath that felt like he could get away with brutally murdering somebody, but on the other hand, the kid's already dead. If that cop meant to do what he did and knew he wasn't in danger, I hope he gets punishment to the full extent of the law.

 

Meanwhile, Nevadan gun's rights activists can get away with intimidating police with an armed barricade, probably because they're white, but who knows!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Really, it comes down to one of two things, he was shot as he fled, a la the friends story, or he was shot, tried to run/walk away and collapsed face down, which is honestly, just as plausible with the in car altercation scenario.  But I want to know which one it is.

 

There is new evidence that was released that the officer received head injuries  in the altercation which lends credence to the cops story, along with the fact that it is implausible that an officer would manage to grab a 6 foot plus man by the neck while sitting inside his patrol car.

 

On the other hand, maybe the cop was absolutely nuts and just wanted to shoot a guy, in which case, send him to rot for life.

 

Now now, let's not call him a gun rights activist, he cares only for himself and hides behind the name.  That would be like associating all Christians to the WBC.  But yeah, probably because they are white and because the BLM is horrible at doing pretty much anything and isn't really a law enforcement agency.

Sahaqiel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.