Ferguson shooting indictment announcement coming at 9PM EST

[Psychic Missile]

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.

You would rather have someone die than give them your wallet? Your credit cards and petty cash are worth more than a human life? I don't think there is a legitimate use of lethal force unless it is to fight against lethal force.

[Sparko]

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.


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.

So you would choose to risk your own death rather than protect yourself and the public from a criminal who has already shown he is willing to kill you. What if you were wrong, and the criminal killed you, took your gun and went on to rob and murder other people? People as a police officer you have sworn to protect? How magnanimous was your decision then?

What do you think Brown would have done with the gun if he had killed Wilson and taken it? He has already shown he doesn't care about other people or their things. He strong-arm robbed a store for just some cigarillos, and assaulted an officer and tried to take his gun.


By saying you choose to save the life of the criminal, you are also saying you don't think the life of the police officer is worth saving, and the public is worth putting at risk.

[Sparko]

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. ;)

Square_peg and PM don't seem to think the life of the cop is worth as much as the life of the criminal, since they are basically saying that they would risk the cop dying for the chance that he MIGHT be able to disable a crazed criminal with some pepper spray. It also puts the public at risk if the criminal gets the gun. Many more lives could be lost. They put all of the responsibility on the officer and none on the proven criminal, who could have complied at any time.

My brother just posted a link to an article on Policeone.com about the use of force:
http://www.policeone.com/use-of-forc...-use-of-force/

How cops can help citizens better understand police use of force
Lt. Dan Marcou
There are three things the public needs to know about contacts with police.

1. Be courteous
2. Be cooperative
3. Be compliant

Criminality, Not Color
It is important for you to convey to the public that police officers pursue criminality, not color. Officers must have a reason to make contact with an individual. They must be able to explain later in court that they had either a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe the individual had committed or was about to commit an offense.

The fact is that more than 95 percent of police contacts are handled without rising above the level of dialog. This is because most people are cooperative and compliant. This is the way it should be, because it is unlawful to resist and or obstruct an officer, while in the performance of his/her duty.

If a person disagrees with a stop or an arrest, the place to argue the case vigorously is in a court of law, not on the street.

Force Options
When an officer meets resistance, officers are trained to use a level of force justified by the specific threat, or resistance they are presented with. For example, if a person pulls away from an officer making an arrest and snaps, “Don’t you touch me,” the officer can choose to apply a compliance hold to that person.

These holds are designed to convince the person to comply.

When a suspect is actively resisting, the officer can also choose to disengage and deploy a TASER or utilize pepper spray to overcome that resistance.

It might surprise some people to discover that when a suspect strikes an officer, or even acts as if he or she is about to strike an officer, that officer can legally deliver impacts with what we call personal body weapons.

Officers can punch, kick, or strike with elbows and/or knees to defend themselves and/or make an arrest.

Officers can also choose to deliver baton impacts to targeted areas on the body. Officers can even strike a suspect more than once if once does not stop the suspect’s threat. If a suspect tries to hit an officer, don’t be surprised when that officer hits back.

Use of Deadly Force
I’ve never heard an officer say at the beginning of a shift, “I hope I get to shoot someone today.”

While the vast majority of officers never fire their weapons in the line of duty, some have to. When an officer is faced with the threat of death or great bodily injury — or someone they are sworn to protect is faced with that same imminent threat — an officer is justified in using deadly force.

There are three generally held misconceptions about deadly force that continually arise and need to be addressed:

1. An officer can shoot an unarmed man under certain conditions.
An officer may have to use deadly force on an unarmed man who is larger, stronger, and/or attempting to disarm the officer, for example. In the case of a suspect, who is battering an officer to the point that he or she may suffer death or great bodily harm, the use of deadly force is defensible. Police officers do not have to sustain a severe beating in the line of duty.

Other factors that could justify an officer’s choice to utilize deadly force are the extent of that officer’s injury, exhaustion, or the number of assaultive adversaries the officer is confronted with.

2. An officer can, in certain conditions, shoot someone in the back.
You see if a suspect is fleeing and their escape presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the community at large, the use of deadly force can be justified. On some occasions a round might enter through the back, because of the dynamics of the circumstance.

3. Officers are not — and never will be — trained to shoot to wound or shoot weapons out of subjects’ hands.
These are not realistic options. Handguns are not accurate enough to deliberately attempt such things when lives are on the line.

The Bottom Line
From 2003 to 2012, 535 officers were killed in the line of duty in this country. Another 580,000 were injured in the line of duty.

I’m afraid that policing — which is already a dangerous profession — is becoming even more so, because of anti-police rhetoric and inaccurate reporting in use of force cases.

If every person contacted by officers were to remain courteous, cooperative, and compliant, there would never be a need to employ force. The reality is, however, that although most people will cooperate, some people will resist arrest.

It is not easy for a lone police officer to get a resistive suspect into handcuffs. If it looks rough, that’s because it is rough.

Police work is a contact sport, but for cops there is no second place. If someone in the public sees a cop struggling with a suspect and decides not to give him/her a hand, they should at least give them the benefit of the doubt.

Cops are not asking for citizens to get into the arena with them — they would just like the audience to stop cheering for the other team.

The only way to get these three extremely simple ideas out to our communities is for you to take this information and share it, with both your fellow officers and with your community members.

[Sparko]

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.

It does work. To view threads that you are subscribed to and see new posts in those threads, just click on "settings" at the very top right hand of the browser window.

[Sparko]

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.

He had a job to do. Once he was assaulted and had someone try to take away his gun, he had a sworn duty to apprehend the criminal before he could get away and possibly hurt others. Also, if you read the transcript, his radio was knocked off channel and backup was not on its way (he thought it was but it wasn't) - so his decision to pursue was the correct one. What good is a cop that just hides in his car anyway? What's next? Police not doing anything because they might hurt a criminal? I don't want my community policed by officers that are too afraid to do their job. And if it comes down to someone getting hurt or killed, I would rather it be the criminal than me, someone else, or the officer.

You and Square_peg wouldn't even make it through the initial police job interview with your attitudes. And if cops all acted like you want, the streets would look like a mad max movie.

[myth]

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.


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.


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.


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

You conclusions are laughably inaccurate, and I've devoted considerable time to show you why. I've admitted I was wrong on these forums several times when someone could actually offer an explanation that proves it. I even admitted I posted an inaccurate number regarding the taser distances. The reason you haven't convinced me of anything else is because your argument is weak -- not because I haven't read what you have to say and considered it.

I have dutifully replied to your latest response in the other thread. If you can offer a new argument or new evidence backing your old ones, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise I consider all of what you've said addressed and, indeed, refuted. I understand you may disagree, but if you'll notice...there are a lot of people on this forum who seem to agree with me and think you're the oddball here. Please consider why this is so, because I seriously doubt they just want to go along with anything I say.

[Zymologist]

You would rather have someone die than give them your wallet? Your credit cards and petty cash are worth more than a human life? I don't think there is a legitimate use of lethal force unless it is to fight against lethal force.

Since you have previously said that a gun is never appropriate against an unarmed individual, your comment here leads me to believe that you think an unarmed person is incapable of using lethal force. Am I reading you right?

[Psychic Missile]

He had a job to do. Once he was assaulted and had someone try to take away his gun, he had a sworn duty to apprehend the criminal before he could get away and possibly hurt others. Also, if you read the transcript, his radio was knocked off channel and backup was not on its way (he thought it was but it wasn't) - so his decision to pursue was the correct one. What good is a cop that just hides in his car anyway? What's next? Police not doing anything because they might hurt a criminal? I don't want my community policed by officers that are too afraid to do their job. And if it comes down to someone getting hurt or killed, I would rather it be the criminal than me, someone else, or the officer.

You and Square_peg wouldn't even make it through the initial police job interview with your attitudes. And if cops all acted like you want, the streets would look like a mad max movie.

Just a nitpick, but Brown didn't try to take the gun. According to Wilson, Brown only touched the gun after Wilson tried to point it at him, and even then was trying to point the gun towards Wilson so that he couldn't shoot.

He also had a duty to protect his own life. Police shouldn't be charging into dangerous situations without regard for their own safety. Without precautions, the job they're performing could fail, no matter how valiant the charge. It's like with plane safety: put on your own oxygen mask before you help other people put on theirs. If he can't confront an unarmed person without killing them, he should remove himself from the situation. He was too afraid (rightly so) to do his job. That's why he had to use a gun. I want my community policed by officers that only kill people as a last resort.

[Psychic Missile]

Since you have previously said that a gun is never appropriate against an unarmed individual, your comment here leads me to believe that you think an unarmed person is incapable of using lethal force. Am I reading you right?

You are not, and I should have worded it better. I was using "lethal force" as a synonym for gun.

[fm93]

It does work. To view threads that you are subscribed to and see new posts in those threads, just click on "settings" at the very top right hand of the browser window.

I've done that, but then when I click on "Subscriptions" on the left-side column, it simply says "There are no subscribed threads to display in this folder for this time period."

[Sparko]

Just a nitpick, but Brown didn't try to take the gun. According to Wilson, Brown only touched the gun after Wilson tried to point it at him, and even then was trying to point the gun towards Wilson so that he couldn't shoot.

He also had a duty to protect his own life. Police shouldn't be charging into dangerous situations without regard for their own safety. Without precautions, the job they're performing could fail, no matter how valiant the charge. It's like with plane safety: put on your own oxygen mask before you help other people put on theirs. If he can't confront an unarmed person without killing them, he should remove himself from the situation. He was too afraid (rightly so) to do his job. That's why he had to use a gun. I want my community policed by officers that only kill people as a last resort.

He wasn't there to confront brown. He was there responding to another call and came across Brown. You think police have the luxury of choosing which situations to get into and which they don't? How was he to know Brown was going to attack him? He merely asked Brown to step out of the middle of the road. It went haywire after that. Not only that, but as in most communities, there is usually one cop for maybe 1000 people. They are spread pretty thin. They are often put into situations where they are alone and have to handle a situation without backup available. They can't just sit on their hands and wait around till other cops show up. If something goes down suddenly, like with Brown, they have to respond to it themselves.

They have an incredibly dangerous job to begin with. That is WHY they carry guns and why they are allowed to use them in defending themselves and the public. Their jobs are already risky. They don't have to let themselves be beat up or killed just to save the life of a criminal who attacks them. It WAS a last resort. He tried to talk calmly to Brown. Brown attacked him. Even after that he warned Brown several times to stop before shooting him. Even while being shot, Brown kept coming until he was hit in the head. If bullets did not stop him, I don't think mace would have either. Shooting him was a last resort.


also, Brown DID try to take the gun:
pg 32
1 he said the individual laying on the street came
2 up to the side of his car and started hitting on him
3 through the window.
4 I said hitting you?
5 He goes, yeah, he reached in, he hit me on
6 the side of my face several times, and grabbed at my
7 shirt, grabbed at my hands and arms.
8 He said I was trying to get out of the
9 vehicle and he wouldn't let me out, he kept pushing
10 the door closed.
11 The individual reached in and was trying
12 to grab at his pistol, his pistol came out of his
13 holster. He told me he had control of the weapon,
14 but it was being pointed at him. He had the gun in
15 his hand, but the muzzle of the weapon had been
16 turned where his hand was actually turned toward
17 him.

also see page 214 for Wilson's direct testimony.

[Adrift]

I've done that, but then when I click on "Subscriptions" on the left-side column, it simply says "There are no subscribed threads to display in this folder for this time period."

He's saying that you don't have to click on "subscriptions". When you click on the button that says "settings" at the top of the screen, your subscribed threads will display right in front of you.

[Sparko]

I've done that, but then when I click on "Subscriptions" on the left-side column, it simply says "There are no subscribed threads to display in this folder for this time period."

When you click settings, it should automatically load the subscriptions page. Check your profile to make sure that the options are set to automatically subscribe you to any thread you post in.

go here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/pr...do=editoptions
and on the right side look for "Default Thread Subscription Mode"
on the drop down box choose "through my control panel only" or one of the email options if you want emails sent to you.

[Darth Executor]

You would rather have someone die than give them your wallet? Your credit cards and petty cash are worth more than a human life?

Shouldn't you be asking the robber that instead? Also, does this logic continue to apply if you replace wallet, credit cards and petty cash with "vagina"?

[fm93]

He had a job to do. Once he was assaulted and had someone try to take away his gun, he had a sworn duty to apprehend the criminal before he could get away and possibly hurt others. Also, if you read the transcript, his radio was knocked off channel and backup was not on its way (he thought it was but it wasn't) - so his decision to pursue was the correct one. What good is a cop that just hides in his car anyway? What's next? Police not doing anything because they might hurt a criminal? I don't want my community policed by officers that are too afraid to do their job. And if it comes down to someone getting hurt or killed, I would rather it be the criminal than me, someone else, or the officer.

Don't like to intrude on other people's discussions, but since you mentioned me in that post...I thought of something regarding what happened when he was in the car. According to the testimony (page 209,

I then placed my car in reverse and backed up and I backed up just past them and then angled my vehicle, the back of my vehicle to kind of cut them off to keep them somewhat contained. As I did that, I go to open the door and I say, hey, come here for a minute to Brown.

It's at this point that he says Brown kicked the door shut, reached in and started punching him. Now, I've never been inside a police car, but assuming that it's essentially designed like most cars here in America, could Wilson not have reached with his free right hand to the clutch or ignition buttons, shifted it to drive, and then stepped on the gas pedal? After all, he never said that he actually turned the engine off; from his account, it sounds like he left the car running. If he steps on the gas pedal, the car surges forward, breaking free of Brown, and then he's safe from getting punched without needing to use a gun. He doesn't need to drive far away, just zip forward on a quick spurt, then hit the brakes and turn around to locate Brown and see what he's doing. If he's running towards the car, Wilson now has more space, and if he's running away, Wilson can turn the car around and pursue him.