Ferguson shooting indictment announcement coming at 9PM EST

[Sparko]

AFAIK, the increased gun use is limited to a small area or two, it is decided by politicians, was in response to criminals with guns killing police, and police in general do not want to be armed.

All UK Police forces have armed units. The bobbies are basically beat patrol cops that walk around neighborhoods. Even they won't go into a gang run slum. The armed units are sent in. In general the UK populace is a lot more civil than most large cities in the USA, with less gang activity and criminals with guns. If criminals routinely carried guns in the UK like they do here, you can bet more police would be carrying guns too. You are basically comparing the UK and the USA and somehow thinking that the USA is Mayberry or something. It's not.

You also seem to think that by unarming the police, that the criminals will go around unarmed too. That won't happen. You will just get more violence and crime.

[Psychic Missile]

As I posted in another thread, the UK is starting to arm more of their police. Scotland already does. The basic British Bobby is an officer that patrols a suburb. They don't usually send them in to handle bank robberies, gang wars, etc. They have armed response units (kind of like our SWAT) that handle the rough stuff.

AFAIK, the increased gun use is limited to a small area or two, it is decided by politicians, was in response to criminals with guns killing police, and police in general do not want to be armed.

[Psychic Missile]

I don't think anyone here thinks police should shoot unarmed people as a matter of routine. But (1) police don't always know until after the event that a suspect is actually unarmed (especially in America, where guns are very available) ; (2) there are occasions when an (apparently) unarmed person is acting in such a way as to require use of lethal force*

1. Police respond to armed and unarmed suspects differently, so it's not a "safe or sorry" situation 2. The point of contention

Because the two societies are very different.

USA: (by my count) 41 officers killed in the line of duty ** in 2014 so far

Homicide rate (per 100,000 people): 4.7

UK: (by my count) 77 officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire since 1900

Homicide rate (per 100,000 people): 1.0

So you're not comparing apples with apples.

And, BTW, American police do arrest plenty of unarmed suspects without shooting them.

* technical term

** not counting accidental gunfire

Yes, the US is more dangerous. We are talking about protocol when police confront an unarmed person, which should be the same in both countries with the exception that police in the US should be wary that they may have a gun.

[Jedidiah]

"If I am threatened I have no way of knowing, until it is too late, what their intentions are." Being threatened doesn't make shooting someone permissible. Any threat could be a case of mistaken intentions on your part, end right away without harm done, or escalate. At least, without a gun involved. When you draw a weapon, who knows how people will react. Your argument looks to me like preemptive killing. What I'm advocating is threat assessment and the avoidance of conflict escalation. That shouldn't be controversial.

Negative amen on this.

[Sparko]

As I posted in another thread, the UK is starting to arm more of their police. Scotland already does. The basic British Bobby is an officer that patrols a suburb. They don't usually send them in to handle bank robberies, gang wars, etc. They have armed response units (kind of like our SWAT) that handle the rough stuff.

[MaxVel]

My main objection to the whole scenario is that I question the validity of the use of guns on unarmed people.

I don't think anyone here thinks police should shoot unarmed people as a matter of routine. But (1) police don't always know until after the event that a suspect is actually unarmed (especially in America, where guns are very available) ; (2) there are occasions when an (apparently) unarmed person is acting in such a way as to require use of lethal force*

If the police in the UK handle unarmed suspects without shooting them, why can't the police in the US?

Because the two societies are very different.

USA: (by my count) 41 officers killed in the line of duty ** in 2014 so far

Homicide rate (per 100,000 people): 4.7

UK: (by my count) 77 officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire since 1900

Homicide rate (per 100,000 people): 1.0




So you're not comparing apples with apples.

And, BTW, American police do arrest plenty of unarmed suspects without shooting them.




* technical term

** not counting accidental gunfire

[Mountain Man]

The reason I don't give credence to the arguments of Wilson's detractors is because they're making their pronouncements from the comfort of their computer chair where they have the luxury to contemplate to their heart's content and determine what they think the "best" course of action might have been. Wilson, on the other hand, was reacting on a spur of the moment to an unpredictable and quickly changing situation. It was less than 90-seconds from the time Wilson first confronted Brown until the final fatal shot was fired.

[Psychic Missile]

It has no relationship to what I prefer. If someone is involved in that sort of thing there is no telling what they plan to do. I see what ever happens to a thief or rapist or murderer is their own fault - not mine. If I am threatened I have no way of knowing, until it is too late, what their intentions are. If they are killed it is too bad but not my fault, their own.

"If I am threatened I have no way of knowing, until it is too late, what their intentions are." Being threatened doesn't make shooting someone permissible. Any threat could be a case of mistaken intentions on your part, end right away without harm done, or escalate. At least, without a gun involved. When you draw a weapon, who knows how people will react. Your argument looks to me like preemptive killing. What I'm advocating is threat assessment and the avoidance of conflict escalation. That shouldn't be controversial.

[Psychic Missile]

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.

I agree with all of this and don't feel it is contradictory to what I've said.

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.

He said in his testimony that the neighborhood was very rough and anti-police. He knew he shot Brown. He felt that Brown was much, much stronger than him. He radioed for backup that was he knew was nearby. If he got out of the car and chased Brown, it would clearly be a dangerous situation. A situation so dangerous he would feel it necessary to use his gun. So why not stay in the car? They can catch an injured man he has a perfect description of alive. He won't be in danger. There won't be a media circus.

My main objection to the whole scenario is that I question the validity of the use of guns on unarmed people. If the police in the UK handle unarmed suspects without shooting them, why can't the police in the US?

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.

On page 214 Wilson said he drew his gun and told Brown to move away. Then Brown grabbed his gun. On pages 268 and 269 Wilson said Brown didn't grab the gun until Wilson removed it from his holster.

[MaxVel]

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.


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?"


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.

In an ideal world no-one would ever die, except in their beds, peacefully. But that's not the world we live in. I think Wilson would certainly have preferred to restrain Brown, but circumstances and Brown's choices prevented that. Second-guessing him now serves no useful purpose that I can see.

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 don't think Wilson did anything morally wrong.

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


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.

Not at all. I specifically limited my statement to sub-groups of the 'movement'.

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.)

Here's the thing - you're more than happy to indulge in hypotheticals when it comes to things Wilson might have done differently, but very reluctant to look at what Brown could have done differently. His step-father virtually incited a riot - maybe, just maybe, there were some family issues that contributed to Brown's poor choices...?

Your lack of balance, when Brown was clearly substantially at fault feeds into the perception that people are unable to look at incidents like this in anything like a neutral manner. That Brown was black and Wilson white seems to me to be a purely incidental fact in this particular case - yet people have blown it into a 'racial' issue, to fit the narrative of African Americans being oppressed by whites. If a large percentage of African Americans are going to see everything as a 'racial injustice' issue they risk creating a negative reaction - where people are going to stop believing real racial problems; and it feeds into a 'victim' mindset that is unhealthy and dangerous.

It's hard to say that a man is serving the community when he kills a member of said community.

By acting as he did, Brown had removed himself from the community of law-abiding and moral citizens. Communities (sadly) need someone who will, if necessary, use force, even lethal force, to protect them from thugs, bullies and criminals.

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.

There's that lack of balance again. Wilson has had death threats, cyberstalking, bounties placed on him, his former home address circulated, and now lives in hiding with volunteers protecting him.

You have no sympathy for Wilson, and yet you wonder why other posters have no sympathy for your concerns for Brown????

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 sounds great, and I'd agree, except for one caveat... ...what do you do with someone who won't allow themselves to be dealt with by the justice system? Someone who is willing to kill others rather than be imprisoned?

And how do we deal with that when we don't know who all those people are until after they've killed... citizens, ...police officers, ...prison guards

[Jedidiah]

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.

It has no relationship to what I prefer. If someone is involved in that sort of thing there is no telling what they plan to do. I see what ever happens to a thief or rapist or murderer is their own fault - not mine. If I am threatened I have no way of knowing, until it is too late, what their intentions are. If they are killed it is too bad but not my fault, their own.

[Mountain Man]

He didn't have enough time to stomp his foot on the gas pedal? It literally takes less than a second and only a few inches of movement from a body part that wasn't even exposed to Brown.


I don't know why you keep assuming that the two are mutually exclusive, when I've repeatedly said that Brown also did something gravely wrong and bears some of the burden.

No, Wilson didn't have time to stomp on the gas pedal, you moron, because he was attempting to exit the vehicle when Brown slammed the door shut and started punching him. Or do you supposed Wilson opened the door of his patrol car without first putting it into park?

"[Wilson] then backed his car up, and says Brown slammed the door on him when he opened it to try to get out."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2024569

And Brown doesn't bear just some of the burden, he bears all of the burden. If he had kept his cool and simply cooperated with Officer Wilson instead of trying to fight his way out then he'd be alive today. Brown's actions gave Wilson very few options, and Wilson picked the most effective and readily available means of stopping his attacker.

[Christianbookworm]

Wonder how painful it is to die from a car driving off with you partway through the window?

[Darth Executor]

Because he doesn't bear "some" of the burden (not even a "most", eh?), he bears all of it.

[fm93]

sheesh. woulda coulda shoulda. No I don't believe he could. He was struggling with Brown, and Brown was punching him and pushing him. He didn't have enough time to reach the gear lever or step on the gas

He didn't have enough time to stomp his foot on the gas pedal? It literally takes less than a second and only a few inches of movement from a body part that wasn't even exposed to Brown.

Couldn't Brown have just not attacked him in the first place? Couldn't Brown have not tried to grab his gun? You never seem to think that would be the preferred solution to the situation. It's always "what could have Wilson done not to kill Brown" not "What could Brown have done or not done to not get himself killed"

I don't know why you keep assuming that the two are mutually exclusive, when I've repeatedly said that Brown also did something gravely wrong and bears some of the burden.