The Ferguson, Missouri thread

[Chun Liroy]

Oh, so we roll up on 12 year olds in a park with no lights/sirens on, and pop em in the chest a couple times before the car stops rolling. Shoot first, ask questions later, blacks too dangerous to take chances.

[wipers]

That toy gun could have been loaded damn it ! Pellet guns hurt deadly force authorized.

[Nephlite]

Oh, so we roll up on 12 year olds in a park with no lights/sirens on, and pop em in the chest a couple times before the car stops rolling. Shoot first, ask questions later, blacks too dangerous to take chances.

Leave out the part where the 12 year old reached in his waistband and pulled out a real looking gun.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...57306e7457.jpg

[wipers]

Pellet gun crime is up 100% in Cleveland.

[wipers]

I don't know what you do in you spare time but I brandish a realistic looking gun in the park till cops shoot me.

[Nephlite]

I don't know what you do in you spare time but I brandish a realistic looking gun in the park till cops shoot me.

I try not to. Been shot two times too many. Hurts a lot and the medical bills suck.

[6souls]

The pellet gun had it's orange cap removed, which is understandable, yet still dangerous.

[wipers]

I blame the cops for not recognizing that as a pellet gun 9/10 cops could have !

[Chun Liroy]

So you roll up inside the confines of a park in a car without sirens or lights on RIGHT next to a person suspected to have a weapon. Are cops not trained to say "PUT THE WEAPON DOWN" or do you shoot anyone with a gun in its holster because you feel threatened?

[wipers]

It's Cleveland anything could happen ! Also the 911 dispatcher failed to say it was a toy gun for some reason.


A 911 caller, who was sitting in a nearby gazebo, told police several times that the weapon was probably a fake, but the dispatcher did not relay that information to the responding officers, referring to it only as "a gun," police tapes show. Deputy Chief Ed Tomba said the officers believed they were on a "gun run."



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...r-rice-n256656

[archibaldcrane]

Leave out the part where the 12 year old reached in his waistband and pulled out a real looking gun.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...57306e7457.jpg

You have to understand that when a cop shoots an unarmed person, or a child, or an unarmed child - at this point we have to look skeptically at statements suggesting "he was reaching for his waistband" or "he was trying to grab my gun" or "he was charging me" without corroborating evidence, given that the cop, in that situation, has every incentive to lie if he fucked up.

The kid pulled out a realistic looking gun? Follow that up with "allegedly" please. You know damn well that whether that happened or not, the cop will say the same thing.

[Nephlite]

So you roll up inside the confines of a park in a car without sirens or lights on RIGHT next to a person suspected to have a weapon. Are cops not trained to say "PUT THE WEAPON DOWN" or do you shoot anyone with a gun in its holster because you feel threatened?

The only thing I can speculate is they didn't have a good location and were canvassing when they just happened upon the kid. That's just my theory.

I didn't hear they didn't have their lights and sirens on, but there's a good reason not to in every situation:

1) Running code (lights and sirens) is extremely dangerous for you (the police officer) and everyone on the road. There's a lot of traffic related fatalities of police not running code and crashing, which is usually pure negligence, but there's just as many traffic related fatalities where the police run code and crash anyways. Running code does not envelop you in a magical bubble that everyone sees, hears, and notices immediately, and it certainly doesn't mean you ignore the basic rules of running code.

2) Running code to potentially dangerous scenes with armed subjects can spook them in to retaliating, running away, provoking confrontation, giving them a chance to hunker down and ambush, there's a hundred reasons.

3) No need to run lights and sirens when you're going slow. The reason to run code is to alert other drivers to get out of your way. No need to use it when you don't need to.

For your second point, that's how it's supposed to go in theory. You should give them a chance to drop the weapon.

Mere possession of a weapon doesn't necessarily constitute Deadly Force, it's the actions that determine it. Grabbing the weapon from a waistband in itself can be Deadly Force, because the action is usually associated with a follow-up Deadly Force threat. Pre-disposed knowledge such as the subject pointing the weapon at people can be considered Deadly Force (i.e. caller says the subject is firing at bystanders or threatening people with the weapon). There's a lot of factors that go in to it.

That was one of the questions behind the Crawford case. What were the precipitating events leading to the shooting? One of the things that came out in the Grand Jury inquiry was that Crawford actually threatened to shoot several people in the store. The other was the misinformation from the caller, who was completely panicked and drove the response to critical levels. The first claim is unverified, obviously. The second one was definitely a factor in the shooting.

In any case, if a subject is holding a weapon at their side when approached, it's generally not considered as Deadly Force. If they move, react, startle, point, or actively use said weapon, it's Deadly Force, and it's such a thin line that it's often very difficult to distinguish the line when you're staring down the sights.

[Nephlite]

You have to understand that when a cop shoots an unarmed person, or a child, or an unarmed child - at this point we have to look skeptically at statements suggesting "he was reaching for his waistband" or "he was trying to grab my gun" or "he was charging me" without corroborating evidence, given that the cop, in that situation, has every incentive to lie if he fucked up.

The kid pulled out a realistic looking gun? Follow that up with "allegedly" please. You know damn well that whether that happened or not, the cop will say the same thing.

In the Brown case, the forensic documents showed that Brown indeed at some point touched Darren Wilson's gun. There's no speculation as to what or how, it's a fact that he grabbed it at some point. At that point, it met the Deadly Force threshold.

In this case, there's absolutely reason to lie to cover it up, however, your view is the child was unarmed because he was holding a toy gun, but in the eyes of the police and the Law, he was, in fact, armed with a weapon. It's a weapon until it is proven otherwise, but that knowledge learned after the fact cannot be used against the officer, or anyone for that matter.

[Chun Liroy]

Have you watched the crawford video and the witnesses 911 phone call? At the time of the incident, the caller claims he is aiming the weapon at people and children, but in the video he is on his cell phone with the gun pointing down as if he was holding it. It also does not appear that the police gave him any chance to react to the situation or announce their presence. They approach him from his side, start firing, he drops the weapon and appears to run before coming back into frame and the cops landing a hit.

It doesn't look like you watch the Tamir rice video either considering you can see in the video that the lights aren't on... So I ask again, why are you approaching a person with a suspected weapon in a police car in close quarters in an area where cars normally aren't even allowed to maneuver into? That's asking for trouble.

[archibaldcrane]

In the Brown case, the forensic documents showed that Brown indeed at some point touched Darren Wilson's gun. There's no speculation as to what or how, it's a fact that he grabbed it at some point. At that point, it met the Deadly Force threshold.

Sure, and that justifies the shot in the car.

The other 11 shots from 50 feet away? Ehhhhh....

[Chun Liroy]

In the Brown case, the forensic documents showed that Brown indeed at some point touched Darren Wilson's gun. There's no speculation as to what or how, it's a fact that he grabbed it at some point. At that point, it met the Deadly Force threshold.

In this case, there's absolutely reason to lie to cover it up, however, your view is the child was unarmed because he was holding a toy gun, but in the eyes of the police and the Law, he was, in fact, armed with a weapon. It's a weapon until it is proven otherwise, but that knowledge learned after the fact cannot be used against the officer, or anyone for that matter.

It can be when the person calling the police says that he believes its just a toy gun and the dispatcher does not relay this information to the police. And if that's protocol, then it should be changed.

[Dimmauk]

Did yall see the pictures of Darren's face after he was supposedly punched numerous times by Brown?

It looks like he just woke up from falling asleep on his desk.

[Krandor]

It can be when the person calling the police says that he believes its just a toy gun and the dispatcher does not relay this information to the police. And if that's protocol, then it should be changed.

He was saying it couldn't be used against the shooting officer. If the dispatcher never relayed information to him that's on the dispatcher, not the officer.

[Chun Liroy]

He was saying it couldn't be used against the shooting officer. If the dispatcher never relayed information to him that's on the dispatcher, not the officer.

I thought he was referring specifically to this case, in which that information could be used against the dispatcher.

[Nephlite]

Have you watched the crawford video and the witnesses 911 phone call? At the time of the incident, the caller claims he is aiming the weapon at people and children, but in the video he is on his cell phone with the gun pointing down as if he was holding it. It also does not appear that the police gave him any chance to react to the situation or announce their presence. They approach him from his side, start firing, he drops the weapon and appears to run before coming back into frame and the cops landing a hit.

It doesn't look like you watch the Tamir rice video either considering you can see in the video that the lights aren't on... So I ask again, why are you approaching a person with a suspected weapon in a police car in close quarters in an area where cars normally aren't even allowed to maneuver into? That's asking for trouble.

I watched both videos. The Crawford one was pretty intense. Can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing, but I can't say that I would have went in that store alone like those boneheads did.

I would like to point out that it really doesn't matter if they had their lights and sirens on. I speculated they didn't know exactly where the kid was and I'm sticking with that. How do you specify where someone is in a park?

Caller: "He's by the gazebo."
Dispatcher: "Which gazebo?"
Caller: "The one with a roof."
Dispatcher: "Sir, there's a dozen gazebos with a roof on them..."

Sure, and that justifies the shot in the car.

The other 11 shots from 50 feet away? Ehhhhh....

We're taught that Deadly Force doesn't end until the threat is over, so him charging back towards Wilson is what instigated the threat. There's conflicting information as to exactly how close Brown was when Wilson fired, but that's what we're taught so, I can't say for sure what the next step is. If someone's actively charging you after you just shot them because of Deadly Force, you don't downgrade force at that point. Since Wilson had no Taser and we don't know exactly how much his bell was rung during the assault, it could have been a disparity.

I thought he was referring specifically to this case, in which that information could be used against the dispatcher.

That's not what is in question here. Dispatch didn't pull the trigger.