Nope, never owned a gun. Never picked one up in my life. Never will. Never had gun training. Never served in the military, thank goodness.
But if I was a cop, I wouldn’t have shot to kill. With every shot, my probability of getting killed or injured is reduced and the other guy’s chance of death increases. There comes a point where I should assume some risk of injury in order not to kill somebody.
Perhaps you should read this article. It’s published by the FBI. It explains what happens with respect to stress, psychological changes, etc. when a law enforcement officer is faced with the need to use lethal force.
I think this may shed some light to your armchair reflections of the events required when an officer pulls his weapon. If you don’t read this, then you’ll never understand how far off base you are here.
So you admit to being completely ignorant on the subject, yet you insist that you know what’s best?
Do you do this with other topics? Do you go tell pilots how they should be landing the plane even though you’ve never flown one? Do you tell doctors how they should perform surgery even though you never went to medical school?
My mistake. I should have given a more detailed description.
At 21:20, he begins discussing the possibility of determining the distance from shooter to target. GSR stippling (gun powder, lead, copper particles) around a gunshot entrance wound can be visible to the naked eye, assuming the shot was fired within, I believe, 24 inches (or something close to that). Visible particles would have been imbedded into the skin. Microscopic GSR particles can travel some 5 feet and has to be tested for beginning with a Modified Griess Test.
The examiners did visually look for stippling but did not mention any doing any further testing themselves. That should have been done during the 1st autopsy.
His use of the present tense and the date of the interview suggests it. Are you suggesting that store owners in Ferguson only call the police after robberies if they were done by whites? 'Cause I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.
You’re twisting yourself in knots here, almost as if you very much want there to have been a robbery.
There’s no reason to think he didn’t call the police at the time (a fact which is not seriously in question) because of subsequent events. If he was going to report a robbery, he’d have done it right after it happened like every other convenience store owner on the planet would have. Unless you’re proposing the store owner is a precognitive clairvoyant, his fear on Friday is no way reflective on his actions at the time of the incident.
No. I am adding a step. The one with the shooting. I’m not confused. You quoted two sentences.
No one is disputing it factually. You’ve already discounted it as having any relevance to the conversation, though. The police are treading lightly “for some reason,” and now, since it’s a week later and the riots aren’t over, well, turns out the cops should have just been rounding up people and shooting them if necessary from “the beginning.” You’ve got it all figured out… except, you know, the bit the riots were about, which hasn’t changed and which you are now advocating; i.e. the approach that says fuck them, they can die if they don’t want to comply the way I want them to comply. By not giving any credence to what the riots are actually about, you’ve basically embodied what the riots are about.
I would say the opposite, that the term “they kill us if …” suggests an ongoing issue, not a one time situation (which would be “they would kill us if …”). Although I’ve acknowleged that it might be imperfect English.
I don’t know. Might depend on how much is at stake and how likely it is that the guy is a gang member, or whatever.
You’re twisting my words into knots here, almost as if you very much want me to have said something you can refute.
I’m not suggesting that he didn’t call the police because he was clairvoyant. I’m saying that as long as it’s plausible that he didn’t call the police out of fear, then you can’t infer from his not calling that there must have been no robbery. (Which is besides for the other point that someone else had called anyway so he didn’t have to at the time, and the storeowner’s current emphasis on the fact that he didn’t call is out of fear.)
I do not see where Brown actually paid for the cigars, in that video. Why did Dorian Johnson’s lawyer admit last week that his client and Brown had stolen the cigars?
The police were notified that a robbery had taken place. A customer could have called the police or the owner/clerk did and doesn’t the mob of protesters to know that the call came from him or his employees.
*Friday on MSNBC, host Alex Witt confirmed that the attorney for Michael Brown’s friend Dorian Johnson, Freeman Bosley said, “My client did tell us and told the FBI they went into the store. He told the FBI he did take the cigarettes.”
The Ferguson Police Department released a report and photos Friday morning detailing a convenance store robbery of cigarillo’s shortly before Brown was fatal shot last Saturday.
Witt said, “I just got off the phone with Freeman Bossily, an attorney for the witness that was with Michael Brown when he was killed. He admitted he said he told federal officials and county officials that Michael Brown did, indeed, take a pack of mini cigars.”*
All of this is immaterial. All it did was set the stage for the confrontation. Right before Brown went into the store he could have been kicking around kittens and sucker punching babies and it still wouldn’t have a bearing on the subsequent events.