I’m not a trained cop but what is wrong with firing a warning shot or at least shooting the guy in the leg. You’re right, I don’t know how I would respond if I was in similar situation but I keep simulating firing 6 shots, and that does seem excessive. I guess we really don’t know how many shots were fired though.
We’ve already discussed this, Chicago. I’m just going to link you to an article that explains. http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
Seriously? Wow. That’s almost as stupid as Wolf Blitzer’s “Why can’t the police just shoot to injure”? Actually, no, that’s more stupid.
They are trained to shoot for center mass, and that’s not the legs.
Uh, no. Richard Parker was pointing out that our evidence of any injury is sketchy as hell, has no indication of the mechanism of injury, and is far from dispositive about whether the officer fired his weapon while facing an imminent threat.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your point that in addition to a right-wing blog, we also have the say-so of the police that this policeman experienced some swelling.
To be clear, you’re of the belief that there are police officers in Ferguson being shot at and refraining from returning fire?
And that not only is that the case, but it was the case before a police officer actually definitely did shoot and kill somebody? It’s a funny definition of beginning, otherwise.
Or maybe he’s following standard police firearms training - which, as noted above, and which has been noted in pretty much every thread this board has ever had about police shootings, is aim for the center of mass and continue shooting until your magazine is empty or the target has stopped moving. If the first shot kills him, then the next five shots aren’t going to make him any deader than he already is, and if he’s still alive after five shots, then it’s not worth the risk to stop shooting and assume that he’s no longer a threat.
- A “warning shot” is pretty much absolutely pointless, as it does nothing to physically halt an assailant, and may very well injure a completely innocent civilian when that bullet you fired into the air inevitably comes down.
- “Shooting for the leg” is damn near impossible on a stationary target, let alone one that’s charging you. The only way to guarantee a hit is to aim for the center of mass, which is relatively stationary on a moving target and where a good hit has a better chance of stopping the target in their tracks.
I’m of the belief that there are now armed people at Ferguson who really hate the cops. I’m of the belief that the cops are treading very lightly for some reason and are basically letting the mob riot nightly without too much interference. I’m of the belief that if they actually did go in and try to arrest every person rioting there would likely be some shooting by the rioters.
It’s probably the fear of this scenario that causes the police to not go in. I think this is bad policy. The rioting needs to be stopped. If a few people have to get shot for that to happen, so be it.
What you’re saying is that whenever the cop fires his gun he has to completely empty his gun into the victim? Why didn’t he pack a bayonet and turn him over and stab him in the gut a few hundred times when he was done shooting?
If it was me and I felt the need to shoot, I’d shoot once or twice, take a few steps back and see if he keeps coming. When he stops coming, I stop shooting.
Note that these two sentences are probably in direct opposition to each other. If more black people are killed by white cops, the situation will probably get a lot worse. The Ferguson cops are probably (rightfully) terrified of any possibility in which they might shoot another black person.
Sure. But why limit it to the Ferguson cops? The State cops are terrified too. So are the National Guard, and the Governor who’s giving the orders.
I agree with you. Everyone is terrified of having another shooting and as a result there have been riots nightly for over a week now.
It’s cowardice at worst. Political expediency at best.
How long until the rioting results in a death or two? I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet.
SIAP - It turns out Brown paid for the cigars he had and neither the store owner nor any store employee had called the cops.
[No theft reported](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft?detail=facebook)Perhaps hand grenades might be more effective crowd control. After all, if someone has thrown something from a crowd, it might not be that easy to pinpoint the exact source. However, with an area-effect weapon like a hand grenade, if it lands in the general vicinity of the culprit, there is a very good likelihood of taking out the guilty party.
However, the probability of excessive property damage might be a negative factor, there is quite a bit of innocent property in the area that must be protected.
Are you looking where you’re going, or at the guy running towards you? And how long are you waiting to distinguish between a shot that brings him down eventually and one that didn’t hit anything immediately important, or between continuing to charge and merely falling towards you?
Thanks for the link; watching that makes it clear that the reporting in the Wire article was, like almost all reporting on technical details, very bad. The “back to front” comment came from one of the attorneys regarding, as you said, the bullet that went through the top of Michael Brown’s head. The other wound that was called significant by Parcells was not the “grazing” wound in the middle of the right arm, but a wound in the forearm. It’s not shown on their diagram or described in the statements as a through-and-through wound, but it is clear from Parcells that the bullet entered the portion of the forearm that’s visible from the rear when a person has arms at his sides, and visible from the front when a person has his arm raised (either defensively or in surrender).
While the reporting quoted the dialogue which said that’s “consistent” with witness testimony, the article failed to make clear that this was offered in direct response to that particular question. Parcells himself made clear that they could not know that from the wound itself.
What’s also more evident in the actual video of the conference is that “direction of travel” of the bullet in question through the arm is moot, but not indeterminate. If Parcells’ comments had been about the grazing wound above Brown’s elbow (as the article falsely states), then the direction of travel would have been important, as a back-to-front wound could have come from either direction, but a front-to-back wound could only have been reasonably delivered from the front. As the wound he was talking about is on the portion of the arm that can be naturally presented in multiple directions based on posture, it’s not really pertinent.
As far as the gunpowder residue goes, I don’t know where you got the information that the 2nd autopsy didn’t look for it. Dr. Baden states at about 21:35 through 22:00 on the video that there was “no gunshot residues on the skin surface” but “in order to be firm about” the distance from which the shots were fired, they’d need access to the clothing, which they did not have.
Grumman? If he’s falling, what difference does it make if he’s falling towards you?
A “shove” is still assault and battery.
I back off, see how fast he can move. Maybe run to the other side of the car. If he’s seriously wounded, he won’t keep it up for long.
Because it makes it take longer to distinguish between somebody who is going to spear tackle you and somebody who is going to fall down once gravity beats momentum.