Kinda early for looting, isn’t it?
But yeah, grab me The Macallan and some Beef Jerky.
I’ve never stolen a cigar in my life.
But I’ve smoked plenty of cigars without a drink.
Just as another data point.
I am guessing you are not widely applauded for your lively sense of fun.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with your first sentence, and of course with the unquoted criticism of “shoot the leg,” a staple of people whose firearms education comes from Hollywood.
But I don’t see that your second sentence is anything but premature.
What evidence contradicts the claims that Brown was surrendering – that his hands were up?
The truth has a way of hanging around.
When you find a firearms training procedure that supports this please, please enlighten us.
Lightly? As assuming it won’t kill?
No argument from me on that one. I’m assuming the justice system will cover that.
Actually, I’m quite amazed that anyone who is able to distinguish Hollywood from real life WOULDN’T come to that conclusion.
Yup
Saying that lethal force often fails does not support the notion that using lethal force is a good idea for non-lethal objectives.
Obligatory Wikipedia link to the femoral artery in case “shoot them in the leg” nonsense goes any further.
He’s the clown? When you’re the one making ridiculous statements like “this is real life where dudes on PCP take 20 shots to the chest and keep on coming”? Srsly?
Shooting someone’s ball-cap off their head gets their attention and is risk free.
Where’s the fun in that?
Even more fun to shoot at their feet and make them dance a little first, Yosimite Sam style.
Unarmed but 6-4 300 (at least) lbs. So what do you grab? No all cops have tasers and they are not designed to shoot at a moving target. You only get one shot. Is that what you use? You can run and fight through pepper spray. In fact that is part of the training to use it. Get sprayed then run through a gauntlet of attackers with pads. Anyone can do it with sufficient motivation or adrenaline. Or maybe you want to wrestle this giant who just beat you and tried to take your gun? Go ahead, decide. You have half a second. I’ll wait.
I’ll say up front that this is going to seem like a gotcha. I assure you it’s not. I want to know your opinion on this possible scenario. I think you are able to look at things logically and put emotion aside.
I believe this is likely to be close to the scenario the officer is going to say happened:
The officer sees two males walking in the middle of the road blocking traffic. He yells at them to get off the road. There is a verbal confrontation with one of them which turns physical. The male subject overpowers the officer due to his much bigger size and strength. The during the struggle the officer is hit in the face and he tries to draw his weapon and both fight over it. A shot goes off while both are partially in the patrol car. The male subject disengages. The officer orders the male subject to stop and surrender. The male turns and charges the officer. The officer just having gone through a struggle for his weapon with the belief that he will lose another struggle due to the disparity of their size shoots until the subject stops coming at him.
In that case do you believe the officer was justified in shooting? I’m not saying this is what happened. As far as I know the above scenario has not been disproven by any available evidence but it is far from being established as fact. I just want to know that if a scenario like that did happen do you think it would be justified? If not what do you think should have been done?
The structure of your sentence…“more and more evidence”…implies that a huge amount of clear evidence has surfaced. But all we have new and different is the autopsy report. The good news…if that is the appropriate phrasing…is that Brown was not shot in the back. And that is good because of the likelihood that if it showed that he were, the situation would get a lot worse.
But did he try? When did he open fire? Brown was fleeing, or wasn’t he? Were any warnings given? Did the officer call for back up? If not, why not? How far away was the officer when he first opened fire? Was his line of fire clear of any civilians?
And what do we mean when we say “justified”? He was a felon, suspected of strongarmed robbery, which is just as bad as armed robbery, only not armed? He was a suspect, so, same thing?
Did he raise his arms, trying to surrender? Before or after he was shot several times in one of them? If he had already been shot several times, why was the last shot even fired? The last shot went into the top of his head, which means he was most likely falling forward, or charging for a lethal head butt. What made that last shot necessary?
The venomous worm at the heart of this cannot be answered, but anyone of conscience must be asking it: if Brown were white, would he be dead?
But you are clearly right on one point, there is no issue as to whether he meant to kill or not, definitely he did. So, that’s one for you.
Gonna have to be more specific about how that happens. Who approaches whom, and in what way?
Despite the officer being in a car? Again, how does that happen?
All by itself? Six times? Hitting the subject every time?
There are posters known for their wit and the humorous bon mot they bring to the occasional thread. None of those posters are you or me.
The only reason to shoot a firearm at a living being is if you intend to kill it. No exceptions, no ifs ands or buts. There’s no “shoot him in the leg to slow him down”, there’s no “warning shot”. That’s not how it works in real life. The time you spend firing a shot to scare your target is the time it takes him to draw the gun you didn’t know he had and shoot you in the face.
-
Why does that matter?
-
The initial reports had the officer being pushed back into the car with a fight happening there. So that is why I chose it for this scenario.
-
Reports stated that one shot happened in the car and no one was hit. I’m not sure if that has been corroborated. In this scenario one shot goes off in the car with no one hit. The other shots happened when the officer was being charged.
Because it tells us who is the aggressor.
OK, but you know about initial reports, especially given who they come from in this case.
If you’re going to assume who is the aggressor, then you’re assuming the conclusion too.
Not as much as you are, Mr. Sunshine.
About the 4 arm wounds: They are consistent with the hands being raised in surrender, or held in a defensive position in front of the head. Either that, or they could be the shots that were fired from the rear (this is according to the presser this morning).
In my opinion, this is the only real set of circumstances that could exonerate the officer. Or in other words, it’s the only way I think the situation could play out in which the officer was in fear of his life or the life of others, given the information we have at present.
I think it’s apparent that people are aware of the possibility or we’d be seeing a lot more unrest and suggestions to lynch the officer.