Ferguson shooting indictment announcement coming at 9PM EST

[Sparko]

What other available avenues?

Carrying guns.

JS43005447.jpg

[Zymologist]

Not from experience, no. Why aren't you finding my words helpful?

Well, with my example of the woman defending herself from a rapist, your response appears to be, "No, don't carry a gun. Just use all the other methods of defense available to you." It seems rather extreme to argue that guns are never, under any circumstances, necessary in defending oneself from an unarmed attacker.

[fm93]

And they are held to higher standards... just not unrealistic ones. By my count three posters with actual experience in police/law enforcement (Adrift, myth, Cow Poke) have told you that you're being unrealistic, the link I provided also confirms that.

And as the link that *I* provided shows, an entire police department is reporting that there are devices like pepper spray that are capable of disabling a potential attacker without kill him. Hardly unrealistic.

Then you don't want to live in the real world, huh? Doing dangerous things by definition carries the risk that you'll get hurt. Sometimes that hurt can be fatal.

Yes, because you're encouraging people to think that certain actions shouldn't have certain consequences. You're encouraging him to make decisions based on a worldview that is empirically false. Trying to wrestle a gun off a policeman is empirically dangerous. Breaking the law, then violently resisting a law enforcement officer, to the point where he had a reasonable expectation that you are a danger to him and others, is dangerous behaviour, and should be so.

You seem to have ignored my example earlier. Driving drunk and over the speed limit is absolutely a stupid, dangerous act that has empirically dangerous consequences. But do you believe that creating options that lessen the chance of death, such as creating better airbags, is somehow "enabling" drunk drivers? Is trying to prevent people from dying in the unfortunate case that they do choose something dangerous "encouraging drunk drivers to make decisions based on a world view that's empirically false?"

What on earth do you think society would be like if we told those people: "Relax, we understand how much it would limit your potential to make you face the possible risk of death in the course of your criminal behaviours. So, from now on, no policeman will be allowed to shoot you or even shoot at you."?

Strawman aside, do you really see no middle ground? We make it clear that if you do something criminal, you can be apprehended via painful methods like tasing and pepper spraying, be found guilty in a trial, lose the support of your friends and family, and then be thrown in prison for the rest of your life. It has nothing to do with not limiting their personal potential, but rather merely keeping them alive so that grace has room and time to abound.

There is, however, plenty of legal precedent (in America, at least) that a police officer will use lethal force to stop you if you assault him, try to steal his weapon, and charge at him when he has his gun drawn on you.

There was also legal precedent in America for people to own slaves and kill them if they tried to resist correction, and do so without punishment. Not that I'm accusing the cops of being like slavemasters, but merely pointing out that something is legal does not have a bearing on whether it is morally right.

I think it was Cow Poke who pointed out that the policeman's decision-making process is reactive, based on what the offender does. Wilson did not shoot Brown down on some random drive-by - he reacted; legally to what Brown chose to do.

This is true, but considering that the issue is whether the reaction necessarily had to involve lethal force, it's not completely relevant.

A sizeable segment of the African American population, for a start. The rioters in Ferguson who think burning down businesses is a reasonable response to Brown being an idiot and getting himself killed.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the majority of the protesters have been peaceful. You're conflating a relatively fringe group with the movements as a whole.

What I see you doing is 'enabling' in the sense that you're looking for fault only on one side - why aren't you questioning the choices Brown made, or his parents failure to bring him up well, or his community's apparent failure to give him positive role models, aspirations and dreams that would have prevented him from throwing his life away foolishly

I am doing that, just like I'm questioning and morally condemning the people who choose to drink while driving. And just as I'm not "enabling" their behavior when I say that I don't want their dangerous choices to result in death, neither am I "enabling" people to make Brown's choices.

(Additionally, those last few sentences may be unwarranted. Do we really know for sure that his parents did a poor job raising him, or that his community didn't have positive role models? Engaging in criminal behavior doesn't always relate to parenting failure. There's no indication that the parents of the Columbine shooters raised their sons in a particularly bad way, for instance.)

or expressing any sympathy at all for the man who risked injury and possibly death trying to get Brown to obey the law, and now faces vilification, hatred and a desire for 'revenge' from who knows how many, simply for serving the community?

It's hard to say that a man is serving the community when he kills a member of said community. And even if Wilson is truly completely innocent and there was literally nothing else he could've done, it's still hard to feel that much sympathy for someone who's alive and physically well. Sympathy is generally reserved for the oppressed and downtrodden, which he is not.

You're enabling because your response seems to be pretty much one-sided, as if Brown somehow was a victim rather than a violent, bullying, and foolish criminal. The message is: "If you're young and black, you don't deserve to face the real-world consequences of your choices. Society owes you."

I've been clear that my response is that he was both, not merely one of the two. My message, at least, is this:

"If you do something to harm human beings, I will not hesitate to punish and imprison you for your choices, because human beings have intrinsic worth and a right to life that I won't let you take away...and so I'll make that punishment as severe as necessary without killing you, because you're ALSO a human being, supposedly made in the image of God, and you, too, have a right to life...and if God truly died for our sins and extends grace to us that we may repent and be reformed, so, too, should you have that opportunity."

That enables a fantasy-based rather than a reality-based decision making process that has a role in the poor choices people like Brown make. Deal with it.

No, you.

[Sparko]

Here is the situation: You have just been attacked by someone who has tried to take your gun and kill you. Despite being wounded the guy turns around and runs back at you and if he reaches you he will kill you.
1. You have a 75% chance to stop him using pepper spray but by the time you find out if it works or not it will be too late to use your gun.
2. You have a 95% chance to stop him by shooting him with your gun.

You want to live, go home to your wife and kids. The guy has already proven he will kill you if he gets the chance. Then he will be on the loose with a police gun, badge and car.

Do you risk the 25% chance of not stopping him with pepper spray, or do you shoot him?

[Psychic Missile]

Well, with my example of the woman defending herself from a rapist, your response appears to be, "No, don't carry a gun. Just use all the other methods of defense available to you." It seems rather extreme to argue that guns are never, under any circumstances, necessary in defending oneself from an unarmed attacker.

Considering the fact that most rapists know their attackers, I question the effectiveness of a gun. But that's a digression. Your point seems to be "why not make all avenues available?" My objection stems from the lethality of a gun. I believe that people should only be killed as a last resort (I hope you believe this too), so if other means are not as lethal but still effective, they are preferable.

[Psychic Missile]

Here is the situation: You have just been attacked by someone who has tried to take your gun and kill you. Despite being wounded the guy turns around and runs back at you and if he reaches you he will kill you.
1. You have a 75% chance to stop him using pepper spray but by the time you find out if it works or not it will be too late to use your gun.
2. You have a 95% chance to stop him by shooting him with your gun.

You want to live, go home to your wife and kids. The guy has already proven he will kill you if he gets the chance. Then he will be on the loose with a police gun, badge and car.

Do you risk the 25% chance of not stopping him with pepper spray, or do you shoot him?

I think it's ridiculous that you turned a complicated event into a gross simplification and made up rules to suit your opinion instead of the facts.

[Sparko]

I think it's ridiculous that you turned a complicated event into a gross simplification and made up rules to suit your opinion instead of the facts.

The basic facts are simple. The only thing I "made" up was the percentages because I don't know the exact ones for each case.

It is a thought experiment, meant for square_peg to answer. If he can't even answer a simplified version of the event then he has no chance in understanding the more complex version that he continues to opine upon.

IF he would have tried a non-lethal method of takedown, he would not have time to then use his gun. So the two options are viable. Would SP risk his life on a lower chance of stopping an assailant with a non-lethal method, or would he have opted for shooting which has a better chance of takedown and at much less risk to him?

Feel free to answer for yourself instead of merely hand-waving away what you don't like to hear.

[Psychic Missile]

The basic facts are simple. The only thing I "made" up was the percentages because I don't know the exact ones for each case.

It is a thought experiment, meant for square_peg to answer. If he can't even answer a simplified version of the event then he has no chance in understanding the more complex version that he continues to opine upon.

IF he would have tried a non-lethal method of takedown, he would not have time to then use his gun. So the two options are viable. Would SP risk his life on a lower chance of stopping an assailant with a non-lethal method, or would he have opted for shooting which has a better chance of takedown and at much less risk to him?

Feel free to answer for yourself instead of merely hand-waving away what you don't like to hear.

Wilson said that he would have used non-lethal means around the time of the struggle but wasn't able to reach them in the heat of the moment, so your scenario is against the man's own judgment. The bigger issue, however, is that it is a false dichotomy.

[Sparko]

Wilson said that he would have used non-lethal means around the time of the struggle but wasn't able to reach them in the heat of the moment, so your scenario is against the man's own judgment. The bigger issue, however, is that it is a false dichotomy.

What is false about it? Do you know how long it takes to incapacitate someone with pepper spray at a distance? There would not have been enough time to use his gun if it failed. Brown would have been on him. And as far as Wilson saying he would have used non-lethal methods, he was talking about while in the car, going through his options. He said he considered mace but he wore contact lenses and if any got in his eyes, he would have been done for, and he was unable to reach it. So he didn't say he "would have used it" but only listed it as a considered option.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...-volume-5.html

Pg 213
10 I considered using my mace, however,
11 I wasn't willing to sacrifice my left hand, which is
12 blocking my face to go for it. I couldn't reach
13 around on my right to get it and if I would have
14 gotten it out, the chances of it being effective
15 were slim to none. His hands were in front of his
16 face, it would have blocked the mace from hitting
17 him in the face and if any of that got on me, I know
18 what it does to me and I would have been out of the
19 game. I wear contacts, if that touches any part of
20 my eyes, then I can't see at all.
21 Like I said, I don't carry a taser, I
22 considered my asp, but to get that out since I kind
23 of sit on it, I usually have to lean forward and
24 pull myself forward to the steering wheel to get it
25 out. Again, I wasn't willing to let go of the one
Page214
1 defense I had against being hit.

Brown was 30 ft away when he turned and began attacking Wilson again. He only had a few seconds to react. He warned Brown a few times to stop and get down. There would not have been enough time to do that and try mace and if that didn't work to use the gun. Heck I can walk 30 ft in less than 10 seconds.

[Jedidiah]

Considering the fact that most rapists know their attackers, I question the effectiveness of a gun. But that's a digression. Your point seems to be "why not make all avenues available?" My objection stems from the lethality of a gun. I believe that people should only be killed as a last resort (I hope you believe this too), so if other means are not as lethal but still effective, they are preferable.

I believe killing should be a last resort, but I see the limit much lower than you do. Leave out the rapes by acquaintances. What about a gun for the rest. I think avoiding rape or robbery or assault is legitimate use of lethal force. You seem to thing that the perpetrators life is worth more than saving someone from rape, robbery or assault. I disagree strongly.

[myth]

What is false about it? Do you know how long it takes to incapacitate someone with pepper spray at a distance? There would not have been enough time to use his gun if it failed. Brown would have been on him. And as far as Wilson saying he would have used non-lethal methods, he was talking about while in the car, going through his options. He said he considered mace but he wore contact lenses and if any got in his eyes, he would have been done for, and he was unable to reach it. So he didn't say he "would have used it" but only listed it as a considered option.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...-volume-5.html

Pg 213
10 I considered using my mace, however,
11 I wasn't willing to sacrifice my left hand, which is
12 blocking my face to go for it. I couldn't reach
13 around on my right to get it and if I would have
14 gotten it out, the chances of it being effective
15 were slim to none. His hands were in front of his
16 face, it would have blocked the mace from hitting
17 him in the face and if any of that got on me, I know
18 what it does to me and I would have been out of the
19 game. I wear contacts, if that touches any part of
20 my eyes, then I can't see at all.
21 Like I said, I don't carry a taser, I
22 considered my asp, but to get that out since I kind
23 of sit on it, I usually have to lean forward and
24 pull myself forward to the steering wheel to get it
25 out. Again, I wasn't willing to let go of the one
Page214
1 defense I had against being hit.

Brown was 30 ft away when he turned and began attacking Wilson again. He only had a few seconds to react. He warned Brown a few times to stop and get down. There would not have been enough time to do that and try mace and if that didn't work to use the gun. Heck I can walk 30 ft in less than 10 seconds.

Thanks for this contribution to the argument. I will say that PM has yet to explain how your dichotomy false, and probably won't. Just like SP is over in this thread, ignoring credible testimony that I've given about taser and pepper spray reliability in the other thread because it doesn't fit the narrative that he wants to push. The minute I offered counter-explanations to his argument, he dropped the issue in that thread. So, he can't refute my statements or counter them in any meaningful way, but is continuing the same argument in another thread.

I enjoy a good argument just as much as the next guy. But repeating your tired and worn-out argument over and over, despite how your argument has been picked to shreds in nearly every way....I just don't understand it. At least it's clear (to everyone by now) SP is going to push his agenda, regardless of the facts or testimony. That's why I've not commented on...well, nearly every inane post of his in this thread.

Arguing with him doesn't achieve anything, so I've given up on arguing with him on this topic. But...it warms my heart to see other people wade in and continue the fight. ;)

[KingsGambit]

Thanks for this contribution to the argument. I will say that PM has yet to explain how your dichotomy false, and probably won't. Just like SP is over in this thread, ignoring credible testimony that I've given about taser and pepper spray reliability in the other thread because it doesn't fit the narrative that he wants to push. The minute I offered counter-explanations to his argument, he dropped the issue in that thread. So, he can't refute my statements or counter them in any meaningful way, but is continuing the same argument in another thread.

I enjoy a good argument just as much as the next guy. But repeating your tired and worn-out argument over and over, despite how your argument has been picked to shreds in nearly every way....I just don't understand it. At least it's clear (to everyone by now) SP is going to push his agenda, regardless of the facts or testimony. That's why I've not commented on...well, nearly every inane post of his in this thread.

Arguing with him doesn't achieve anything, so I've given up on arguing with him on this topic. But...it warms my heart to see other people wade in and continue the fight. ;)

Professional expertise is always welcome!

[fm93]

Here is the situation: You have just been attacked by someone who has tried to take your gun and kill you. Despite being wounded the guy turns around and runs back at you and if he reaches you he will kill you.
1. You have a 75% chance to stop him using pepper spray but by the time you find out if it works or not it will be too late to use your gun.

According to this police bulletin, the inflammatory effects of pepper spray begin immediately. Even if they didn't, you act as if the officer was obligated to stand still and wait to see if it worked. Could he not use the spray and then immediately turn and sprint away for a few seconds before turning back around? This way, he buys himself extra space and time in the event that the spray didn't work, and obviously if it did, Brown is stopped or blindly groping around, and Wilson can return and get into better position to make an arrest. By both of their physical descriptions and his own testimony, he should've been the faster of the two.

2. You have a 95% chance to stop him by shooting him with your gun.

There's also a much higher chance of killing him by using a gun, and killing someone isn't the result that I desire. So then the decision is between the method that has a decent chance of stopping him and essentially 0% chance of killing him, versus a slightly higher chance of stopping him and (I'm assuming) at least 50% chance of killing him. Additionally, there's a chance that I can get away and survive even if the first method doesn't work. Considering all these factors, I'm not that inclined to use the gun at this point.

[fm93]

Thanks for this contribution to the argument. I will say that PM has yet to explain how your dichotomy false, and probably won't. Just like SP is over in this thread, ignoring credible testimony that I've given about taser and pepper spray reliability in the other thread because it doesn't fit the narrative that he wants to push.

I addressed your testimony but am tentatively rejecting it because of other credible testimony that contradicts yours--in other words, I'm rejecting it because it doesn't fit the overall picture that I've seen from experts. Hopefully you haven't pulled a hamstring leaping to all these assumptions.

The minute I offered counter-explanations to his argument, he dropped the issue in that thread. So, he can't refute my statements or counter them in any meaningful way, but is continuing the same argument in another thread.

Or, it could be that I participate in several other threads on this forum, and because the subscriptions page from the pre-crash site no longer seems to work, it's confusing to keep up with every single thread, especially when one is involved in multiple threads with similar titles addressing essentially the same issue.

At least it's clear (to everyone by now) SP is going to push his agenda, regardless of the facts or testimony. That's why I've not commented on...well, nearly every inane post of his in this thread.

I had finally located and responded to your last post in that other thread, but now I feel that I should simply stop and no longer bother commenting on your inane posts that accuse others of devious motivations.

Arguing with him doesn't achieve anything

Seems that this shoe fits you well enough to wear it.

[Psychic Missile]

What is false about it? Do you know how long it takes to incapacitate someone with pepper spray at a distance? There would not have been enough time to use his gun if it failed. Brown would have been on him. And as far as Wilson saying he would have used non-lethal methods, he was talking about while in the car, going through his options. He said he considered mace but he wore contact lenses and if any got in his eyes, he would have been done for, and he was unable to reach it. So he didn't say he "would have used it" but only listed it as a considered option.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...-volume-5.html

Pg 213
10 I considered using my mace, however,
11 I wasn't willing to sacrifice my left hand, which is
12 blocking my face to go for it. I couldn't reach
13 around on my right to get it and if I would have
14 gotten it out, the chances of it being effective
15 were slim to none. His hands were in front of his
16 face, it would have blocked the mace from hitting
17 him in the face and if any of that got on me, I know
18 what it does to me and I would have been out of the
19 game. I wear contacts, if that touches any part of
20 my eyes, then I can't see at all.
21 Like I said, I don't carry a taser, I
22 considered my asp, but to get that out since I kind
23 of sit on it, I usually have to lean forward and
24 pull myself forward to the steering wheel to get it
25 out. Again, I wasn't willing to let go of the one
Page214
1 defense I had against being hit.

Brown was 30 ft away when he turned and began attacking Wilson again. He only had a few seconds to react. He warned Brown a few times to stop and get down. There would not have been enough time to do that and try mace and if that didn't work to use the gun. Heck I can walk 30 ft in less than 10 seconds.

I meant while he was in the car, and I admit I was wrong about that (I was going by a summary of the transcript) because that's a third option: not leaving the vehicle. He was safe, he had back-up coming, and the suspect was wounded.