Re: Michael Brown

[Cow Poke]

I doubt a trained officer would grab a suspect from the car like that. Unless you get really lucky, you're gonna get hurt when the guy yanks away, smashing you into the car door - or breaks your arm because it's so vulnerable from the position. (Hint, the entire opening becomes a convenient fulcrum.]

Yeah, I can't imagine a scenario in which I would want to grab a suspect through the car window, because ALL of my training tells me not to try to fight from an inferior (seated) position. And what reason did he have to grab him, unless Brown physically assaulted him first, and grabbing his arm was instinctive to keep from being hit again, or...

[robrecht]

I doubt a trained officer would grab a suspect from the car like that. Unless you get really lucky, you're gonna get hurt when the guy yanks away, smashing you into the car door - or breaks your arm because it's so vulnerable from the position. (Hint, the entire opening becomes a convenient fulcrum.]

I agree it would not be a smart thing to do. Maybe Michael Brown or his friend mouthed off and he reacted in anger. It is also unlikely that Brown just started fighting with an armed officer through the car window, unless perhaps one thinks that he was crazed from Marijuana. I don't think we know exactly how this altercation started and I suspect we never will.

[Cow Poke]

I agree it would not be a smart thing to do. Maybe Michael Brown or his friend mouthed off and he reacted in anger. It is also unlikely that Brown just started fighting with an armed officer through the car window, unless perhaps one thinks that he was crazed from Marijuana. I don't think we know exactly how this altercation started and I suspect we never will.

Not necessarily "crazed from marijuana", but it may well have impacted his demeanor, which he already shows -- just 10 minutes prior -- was pretty aggressive. His attitude toward civil society was pretty much in the toilet.

[robrecht]

Unbelievable, actually -- can't even imagine that.

WAY more likely!

Does this suppose that Brown punched him first? I mean.. what reason would Wilson have for "grabbing" Brown at ALL unless Brown had committed some type of offense. And, is it your impression that Wilson did NOT YET KNOW that Brown had committed the crime?

Brown had just robbed the store, and acted aggressively toward the store clerk -- not a sign of a "normal" man -- and had been smoking marijuana. Yes, a "normal" man would not have tried to start a fight with an armed officer, but I don't think were dealing with Joe Citizen here.

I have no idea if Brown punched the officer first or if Wilson suspected Brown of having been involved in the cigar robbery. I do suspect that aggressive language may have preceded aggressive actions. Brown's friend accused Wilson of using aggressive language first, but it might be the case that they verbally or otherwise dissed the cop and that is why he backed up and tried to get out of his car. If they prevented him from getting out (intentionally or otherwise) and then tried to run, he might have tried to grab one of them and go for his gun. Just trying to imagine possible or likely scenarios.

[robrecht]

Not necessarily "crazed from marijuana", but it may well have impacted his demeanor, which he already shows -- just 10 minutes prior -- was pretty aggressive. His attitude toward civil society was pretty much in the toilet.

I agree it may have negatively affected his demeanor, but there is a pretty big difference between pushing away a short store clerk and attacking an armed police officer.

[Psychic Missile]

Way to miss the entire point.

I still don't get the point.

You're doing that "group respond" thing again.

BOTH sides seem to concede that the confrontation started with Wilson IN the car. The nuttier posters believe that Wilson pulled up to TWO men, reached out and grabbed the BIGGER one by the throat, and tried to drag him into the front seat of the patrol unit with him. The more RATIONAL posters believe that it was Brown reaching INTO the patrol car, either trying to get Wilson's gun and/or physically assaulting him.

I separated my replies some. I don't understand what more I should do.

I have no idea what happened between them at that point. All we know is that there was a physical altercation. It seems like you are making an assumption that I see no evidence for.

I have no interest in drawing out long replies to all of your comments, since you don't appear to be making any sort of argument. You also don't appear to be interested in what my position is when you respond to my statements.

Well, most of them don't have the luxury of watching hours and hours of slanted news coverage then waxing eloquent on a computer keyboard while gulping beer and snacking on pork rinds.

Again, I don't think you have even a CLUE how fast things can happen, the amount of adrenalin that gets flowing, and the life or death decisions that have to be made in SECONDS or even TENTHS of seconds.

"It happened so fast" is not an excuse for murder.

[Bill the Cat]

"It happened so fast" is not an excuse for murder.

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

[robrecht]

I still don't get the point.

I separated my replies some. I don't understand what more I should do.

I have no idea what happened between them at that point. All we know is that there was a physical altercation. It seems like you are making an assumption that I see no evidence for.

I have no interest in drawing out long replies to all of your comments, since you don't appear to be making any sort of argument. You also don't appear to be interested in what my position is when you respond to my statements.

"It happened so fast" is not an excuse for murder.

Are you assuming that Officer Wilson committed murder? I assume not, since you admit that you do not know what happened between them, but I must admit that I have not been reading all of your posts.

Do you honestly believe that Cow Poker is saying that 'it happened so fast' is a legitimate excuse for murder?

By the way, Cow Poke, AKA Purple Pants, doesn't want you to mix your responses to him with your responses to others in the same post as you did above.

[Psychic Missile]

Your evidence of this is what? A bald assertion that you just made up in the sad hopes that your assertions will not be called upon and will have to be defended? Funny thing is, the UK has started to rearm their police force as BBC just recently reported this last month. In fact, the article itself says something that puts a giant hole in your argument:

"Although every police force has a firearms unit, for decades it has been an article of faith that in the mainland UK, almost uniquely among major industrialised nations, the police do not carry guns as a matter of course."

Why do they need a fire arm unit if your primarily claim is that the UK does not need it? The obvious seems to be totally absent from your thought process, unarmed police doesn't seem like such a good idea after all.

That article says the arming is taking place in a very low crime area, with one person calling it the safest place in the UK. Members of government are opposed to it, with some thinking that it will cause criminals to better arm themselves. This is also not a major change in policy. 1.6% of Scottish police carry guns on duty A 2006 survey found that 82% of UK officers didn't want to be armed.

More bald assertions that you're unable to defend because armchair analysis is all you got left. Go ahead sweety, explain to everybody how your plan would work and how you plan on training the police of America to not need fire arms. The UK seems to be backing off from this idea, why do you suppose that is?

First, the UK is not backing off from the idea. It says no such thing in your article. Second, even if they were, the tactics still worked for many, many years. They are evidently good tactics.

And if you haven't noticed, London is not the entire country.

They still have unarmed police in London. Your argument is that unarmed police tactics would not work on ethnic groups with statistically larger builds. The fact that London is ethnically diverse proves you wrong.

Do you understand that you can't tell how threatening a person is just by looking at them? To prove my point, let me give you some pictures of some murderers of the past few decades and see if you can tell me how threatening they are, just by looking:

Dennis Rader - killed 10 people, can you tell, just by looking at him, that he is a serial killer?

Jeffrey Dahmer - Can you tell, just by looking at him, that he killed over 17 people?

Ted Bundy - Can you tell, just by looking at him, that he is also a serial killer?

My point? I wasn't aware that you were able to instantly tell if somebody was a 'threat' to you just by looking at them. I have no idea that the criminal that happened to have broke into my house is some guy looking for money to buy crack or if he is some murder looking for his next victim. Can you give me a 100% guarantee that they are not going to do some horrible things to me and my family? Yes or no? I sure can't, so please, don't run for office or try to pass laws related to your nonsense. Protecting criminals seems to be your primary goal.

My primary goal is for people to not die unless a life is threatened. You seem to be under the impression that life is an action movie and people should respond to every threat guns blazing. That's not how real life works. In the real world we assess a situation and think about what the least dangerous path is. Letting a thief take things and go is less dangerous then starting a firefight with your family in the next room. Calling the police and guarding a single room is less dangerous then taking on a group of criminals alone.

[Cow Poke]

I agree it may have negatively affected his demeanor, but there is a pretty big difference between pushing away a short store clerk and attacking an armed police officer.

So, you think that he went from BULLY mode to compliant citizen, still holding the stolen articles?

[Cow Poke]

I have no idea what happened between them at that point.

EGGzackly!

All we know is that there was a physical altercation. It seems like you are making an assumption that I see no evidence for.

And what, exactly, is the assumption I'm making? Please use my actual QUOTE if you don't mind.

I have no interest in drawing out long replies to all of your comments, since you don't appear to be making any sort of argument.

Whatever you wish!

You also don't appear to be interested in what my position is when you respond to my statements.

Because you are so profoundly disconnected from reality.

"It happened so fast" is not an excuse for murder.

NOR did anybody claim that.

[Psychic Missile]

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

That's how you see Brown?

Are you assuming that Officer Wilson committed murder? I assume not, since you admit that you do not know what happened between them, but I must admit that I have not been reading all of your posts.

Do you honestly believe that Cow Poker is saying that 'it happened so fast' is a legitimate excuse for murder?

By the way, Cow Poke, AKA Purple Pants, doesn't want you to mix your responses to him with your responses to others in the same post as you did above.

Not legally, but by my moral judgment.

My argument is that police should not default to shooting people. They should assess the situation and decide what level of force is needed. Cow Poke's argument is that this may be difficult to do in the heat of the moment. I understand that this is true, but urgency does not absolve someone of their actions. A person is dead by another person's hand.

I thought he didn't want giant replies to many people. I thought doing it this way would save the thread from clutter. As long as it's okay moderation-wise, I'm willing to split my replies up per person. I just thought that might be frowned upon here.

[Bill the Cat]

That's how you see Brown?

No. But that's how you apparently see the officer.

[Cow Poke]

My argument is that police should not default to shooting people.

Triple-facepalm.jpg

[Psychic Missile]

And what, exactly, is the assumption I'm making? Please use my actual QUOTE if you don't mind.

"it was Brown reaching INTO the patrol car, either trying to get Wilson's gun and/or physically assaulting him."

NOR did anybody claim that.

Well then what did you mean by that? Do you disagree with my statement "I expect every police officer to forgo shooting someone when other solutions are available and known to work"? Is that unreasonable?