Last night's CBS Evening News did a story right after this one about how shootings along the mexican border are also now going out of control... it seems the Border Patrol keeps shooting innocent and unarmed mexicans in more racist acts of violence. Boy, it's amazing how powerful the media has become for the Obama Administration and their various agenda items.
Usually i'm in the "so they shot another thug camp, so what?" but in this case I just keep wondering why the police don't clear themselves of any wrong doing ...
Your last post seems to assume that the officer intended the placement of each shot. I recall well my first case of an officer shooting someone in the arm. It was back in the early 1990s. The officer was armed with a shotgun, and did NOT plan on shooting the individual in the arm. The officer was a firearms instructor and tactical team member.
My last response to you wasn't "snarky". It was insulting and contemptuous and derisive, with a touch of irony. It was intended to emphasize that NOBODY should EVER take your foolish, poorly thought out, poorly researched and biased advice, suggestions or even hints about what one should do, or attempt to do in an armed encounter. You have no idea.
There are (offhand) about two situations where an officer could "consider" shooting someone in the leg. If the shooting was justified (and I don't think I have enough information to make that call), an attempt to shoot the guy in the leg was not a good idea.
I have a SWAG (simple wild assed guess) as to the reason for the location of the shots, if any of them were intentionally placed. I consider it unlikely that all of them were intentionally placed close to where they ended up. LEOs may be familiar with the concept of the "failure drill". It is one plausible explanation of how, with a large, seemingly impervious and rapidly advancing opponent, one could end up shooting him multiple times, and then in the head (successfully) as the range closes. Not saying it did, or probably happened that way; merely that it is one plausible explanation that emerges from the witness transcript posted above, and the reported independent autopsy findings.
Thanks TJC.... I wasn't giving any advice merely speculating and questioning on what may have happened I don't have the answers any more than you admittedly do (swag). As to defending myself and my family against an enraged violent person intent on doing us harm I have... .I made no claims to being able to teach others...... On the other hand I guess that all shootings by police are justified? The whole point of the thread.Enjoy your day I'm off to work.
Well.................. glad that's cleared up.
On another note, it seems that MSNBC is getting the rccognition they deserve in Ferguson;
MSNBC anchors Chris Hayes and Craig Melvin were pelted with rocks during the networks live coverage of the ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.
I guess the protesters didn't like their coverage.
Why don't the police clear themselves?
johnw look at the title of this thread and many of the posts w/in.
One, few would believe them, two everyone expects speed and instantaneous findings
which rarely contain all the facts.
While we always have talk about "rights" , which usually mean the victim has no responsibility for their actions
in these cases.
This officer is more than likely done as a LEO even if cleared and his actions are determined justified.
The office has rights also , as does the tax payers of the community.
As ato bullet placement. I believe this happened within seconds. I believe that adrenalin rush had a lot to do with the inability to place the first shots exactly where they should have been. It is also possible that the officer did not have a proper grip on his sidearm and that it would naturally shoot to the left every time he pulled the trigger until the suspect got close enough that it didn't matter.
Also Officers are trained to kill if deadly force is necessary. mostly for legal reasons because dead men tell no tales.
Lighten up Bruce. The revelation that Brown had used marijuana in the recent past adds nothing to the search for the explanation of what happened that day. The effects of pot are not the sort that leads to the kind of aggressive behavior that results in one lying face down in the street in a puddle of his own blood with six bullets from a policeman's gun in his body. Disclosure of Brown's pot use invokes the sort of anti pot propaganda that the previously mentioned film was famous for.
One thing that strikes me about the coverage is how there is no critical thinking on the media's part - how does a shot to the top of the head translate into "shooting him in the back"? It doesn't at all, unless he was falling backwards, which is possible, but unlikely.
Yet the media repeats Crump & Co's statement over and over, pretending their job is merely reporting what is said, rather than also evaluating it for reasonability or skeptically, which they tend to do ad nauseam to conservative positions. It's as if the media is acting as Crump and Co's PR agency, rather than giving us information.
thejohnchapman, Thank you for the link regarding the failure drill. Should be required reading for all interested in this thread and for those interested in basic self defense with firearms info.
Thank you Roger S
I am familiar with the film.
I will wait to see if in end the relationship to events is established .
I believe that it is related but not the cause of the aggressive behavior.
But for now it is covered quite well by yourself and taxfoe .
Found this CNN report :http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/18/officers-version-of-ferguson-sho...
So releasing the dash cam that in some way supported the LEO version would have no affect on the rioting?
I think it would have some affect on my skepticism and that this is just another case of a police department covering its own ass at the detriment of the community
If a person in Ferguson is shot by police what are the chances the cop was white?
"On the other hand I guess that all shootings by police are justified?"
The big problem is the plural -- "shootings". Why so many people reason from their biases? Why do they read around every suggestion I make that they should not do so? Each case is justified, or not, regardless of what people a thousand miles away think, don't think, or feel. The issue for most of us is the acquisition of the facts "through a glass darkly" from the media, who often deserve beheading for the havoc they wreak in the name of sales.
There is an operative set of real world "facts" out there. Nobody posting here has but an eighth hand clue as to what they might be. Therefore, let the cop go, or put him to death. I don't know s**** about the real facts, but I'm SURE I know enough to make national public policy and dispense with due process. (The preceding statement should be read out-loud, slowly, to appreciate its irony.)
Could you email that to the Gov. of Missouri !
Today, everyone assumes that there WILL be video. I haven't researched the equipment of the locals. Most dash video records straight ahead. Some also does inside the car, and a smaller subset also does the view to both sides. It sometimes includes ambient sound feed.
The jumbled reportage suggests that the stop initiated as some form of aggravated jaywalking. As such, the officer might not have actuated the camera. If it didn't happen in front of the car, there might be audio with no video, or neither, despite the (hypothetical) camera running.
Still, there are things shown that are important, that might cut against release yet. If the video shows twenty people in the area, but not the event, each of those twenty people will be sought for an interview. Those who will NOT talk might be subject to the grand jury process, subpoena, claim of the fifth, immunizing, and more testimony. Interviewers will NOT show witnesses the video until there is no other way to get useful information, and after all other witnesses are through the process.
There's also the possibility of deletion of the hypothetical video from the hypothetical camera, bad faith decision NOT to turn on the hypothetical camera so that one's murder of a jaywalker whom the news reports is the actual robber of a store, and a self-aware silicon based intelligence altering the hypothetical digital video in the hypothetical camera.
Bottom line, we should not, if they are doing things right, expect to see such a video soon, even if it exists. If it exists, but is not definitive (like where it shows fifteen people looking at the event that is out of view), delay is MUCH more likely. If video does not exist, we will never see it. We will see the dept. policy on mobile video equipment, maybe state law of same, the 911 calls, the radio traffic, and the like. We will get explanations, excuses, etc.
Maine has policy on mandatory recording. I haven't checked to see if Missouri has a mandate on use of recording equipment.
Mike G- you've lived in Maine too long. You need to put down your libertarian tracts and get out to some of America's more vibrant "communities" and I don't mean Portland.
Releasing another video (if it exists) would have no effect because the MSM would have twisted the facts and suppressed the evidence if possible. Eric Holder's "Justice Dept." (Hah!) would have done the same thing. It has already tried.
Satisfying your curiosity or even seeking the truth isn 't Holder's or perhaps Gov Nixon's highest priority. Neither is, apparently protecting innocent lives and property from a rampaging black mob of rioters.
These ultra liberal, partisan Journolist II types parachuting into Ferguson with their Goggle glasses and Leftist ideology aren't there to report the facts. They're there to promote and spoon feed the Narrative to a naive public which believes the propaganda passing as journalism on MSNBC and just about all other media outlets are unbiased objective accounts. But they're lying.
And they're not onfused. They're active collaborators with the white- hating rioters and are evil. They are trying to play gotcha and prevent the police from doing their job.
The police authorities should be putting down the rioters with ruthless coersive force, but they, like too many others, are afraid of the Obama-worshiping PC media and don't want to lose their middle class jobs.
Ferguson has now become another East St.Louis and Detroit where what's left of the white middle class will be driven out again. Putting black police on the beat via AA programs won't bring them back or restore a semblance of order and civilization.
Western civilization is now gone from Ferguson as it is in other vast areas of America's urban ghettos. It could disappear from an area where you live sooner than you think when the thin Blue Line disappears.
While simply having black faces "out there" in the PD may be silly, having real cops who happen to also be black is desirable, especially if they are from the same community. Locals know stuff. True diversity in the non EEOC sense is important. Having a Somali officer or three in Lewiston is a good thing. It may be like extra training wheels on a bicycle in Cortez Colorado, though having an Apache or Navajo (or two) would be fab.
But they're lying.
There's a lort of lying, and I think this is more a case study in lying and political influence than it is police procedure.
" . . It may be like extra training wheels on a bicycle in Cortez Colorado . . "
Just came through Cortez. No extra training wheels observed. A friend of Thom Connolly has a mother who works in nearby Dove's Creek (Shell station).
Cop's lights nearly punched out and no video
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon came under fire today after calling for the 'vigorous prosecution'of Wilson despite the fact that the officer has not been charged with any crime to date.
His deputy, Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder said: 'It's really heartbreaking to see a man elected to an office that high in our state government ... come out with a statement like that, that does prejudge the case.'
St Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said on Wednesday he estimated it would be the middle of October before the grand jury reached a decision on whether Officer Wilson will face charges over Michael Brown's death.
So much for a paper of record. The same URL, (their) headline and placement had the no video claim earlier today. Ordered but not installed, according to the chief. Now gone.
The source also said the dashboard and body cameras, which might have recorded crucial evidence, had been ordered by Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson, but had only recently arrived and had not yet been deployed.
Cited the wrong source.
And I just saw it reported that there was all sorts of digital camera equipment on order for the dept -- but it hadn't arrived yet. So how does that bit of information (again -- IF true), affect the demand to be shown the video? What would we call a demand for something that we do not know exists? Would "stupid" fit the bill? "Preposterous" would be more literally appropriate, meaning that which should come second instead is placed first.
"Unfortunately, dashcam and body cameras ordered by the Ferguson Police Department had not yet arrived at the time of the incident."
However, it is the (fallible) media. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/20/ferguson-officer-darren-wilso...
Having black policemen, mostly put there by passing over more qualified white men, has not helped restore Detroit or other black majority urban areas as relatively safe areas where law abiding middle class white people can work, raise families, and travel. Same with the black middle class. They flee too.
I know Detroit quite well and it's essentially a No Go zone for anyone with half a brain. It's now bankrupt and an empty shell of its former status as "Paris of the Midwest (1920s), the "Aresenal of Democracy", (1940s) and its reputation for having the highest paid blue collar work force in the nation (1950s).
Why would Lewiston be better off with Somali cops? Is Mogadishu? Why, in fact, were Somalis, a primitive Muslim African warrior class people, brought into America and Lewiston, a white French-Catholic city, already suffering the economic destruction of "globalization", by our so-called cultural- political elites?
The employees of Catholic Charities made a ton of (taxpayer) money on the scam but brought nothing but unresolvable trouble to Lewiston and Maine taxpayers.
I do remember all the "Diversity is Our Strength" BS coming from Maine's various newspaper editorial boards. The name John Christie comes to mind.
These people are destroying America with their lies and Leftist egalitarian propaganda, yet they never take responsibility nor suffer the consequences when it all goes south. They just move on to create another disaster.
No "AA" program for police or any other profession is going to convert Third World people to accept the moral and cultural norms of a transplanted European civilization.
And it's time we call out the liars and fools who have been spoon feeding this Narrative since the 1960s "Civil Rights" era and the 1965 Immigration Act. They've been wrong and evil. We need to tell them so loudly in Nov of 2014.
Re the tox screen:
The propeller heads don't say it is unrelated, just complex. If you want a less academic treatment, ask a pothead if MJ ever makes you paranoid. That was a plausible reason for the Trayvon Martin interaction with George Zimmerman.
HERE IT IS:
The video that everyone should watch at least once. Although it is not "The Video" you might have expected.
From the liberal side, this is all about pandering to the African American and minority vote, to keep African Americans "on the plantation" for 2016.
I'm curious how the "double standard" issue plays regarding this item I stumbled across on the net.
I heard nothing about this on the national media.
The "good guy" with the gun against the "bad guy" with the knife (or machete, axe, club, tire-iron, etc.). "No contest", you say. "The man with the gun can't lose." Or can he? A great deal depends on his ability with that gun and the proximity of his opponent.
If, for example, our hero shoots his would-be attacker at a distance of 20 yards, he loses. Not the fight, you understand, but most probably his freedom because he will almost certainly be charged with murder. The only thing that justifies your shooting another human being is the immediate need to stop him from trying to kill you (or someone else), remember?If, on the other hand, our hero waits to fire until his attacker is within obvious striking distance, he may still lose. His shots may not stop his attacker instantly enough to keep him from using his knife.So, what is the answer - just how close is too close?Consider this. How long does it take for you to draw your handgun and place two center hits on a man-size target at seven yards? Those of us who have learned and practiced proper pistolcraft techniques would say that a time of about one and one-half seconds is acceptable for that drill.With that in mind, let's consider what might be called the "Danger Zone" if you are confronted by an adversary armed with an edged or blunt weapon. At what distance does this adversary enter your Danger Zone and become a lethal threat to you?
We have done some testing along those lines recently and have found that an average healthy adult male can cover the traditional seven yard distance in a time of (you guessed it) about one and one-half seconds. It would be safe to say then that an armed attacker at 21 feet is well within your Danger Zone.
Curiously, the most prominent Democrat outside of BHO, Hillary Clinton, is strangely quiet on Ferguson. Maybe for good reason.
She and her retinue know they need a certain percentage of the white vote to win in 2016, something in excess of 42%.
She doesn't have to do anything really to lock up 97% of the African-American vote. She just can't alienate the blue collar white vote in critical Electoral States, especially in the Midwest and allow the GOP to grab over 60% of the white vote like Reagan used to do.
Cynical morality, cowardly calculation, but good politics. She's counting on the GOP being too stupid or craven to actually run a campaign to appeal to the interests and concerns of its white middle class base. She's probably right.
I'm curious how the "double standard" issue plays regarding this item I stumbled across on the net.
The Zimmerman and Brown case, like the Duke Lacrosse and Tawana Brawley case are merely incdents that the Democrats use to rally the troops. Particular facts have nothing to do with it, once Sharton and crew commit themselves.
As a matter of fact, as I've long maintained here, a Democrat litmus test for advancement is whether one is willing to disregard facts in order to advavce the party narrative.
Hlllary's strength is firming up the women's vote, rather than the African American bloc. As such, she has no dog in this fight, and it's a pig pile, for sure. Better for her to stay clear.