Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Ferguson shooting indictment announcement coming at 9PM EST

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    I'm just trying to figure out what could've been done to keep Brown from dying.
    Someone could've taught him not to punch a cop and try to steal his gun. Maybe avoid robbing stores. Stuff like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    Right...but then, according to Wilson's own testimony, Brown started running away. It takes barely a second to locate and secure the pepper spray before getting out of the car to chase after him.


    I'm not. Although aspects of Wilson's testimony personally sound far-fetched to me, I'm going along with them for now, since, you know, Brown can't offer his side of the story. I'm just trying to figure out what could've been done to keep Brown from dying.


    Again, for now I'm accepting his testimony, although technically, he said that they were moving out of the street when he noticed the cigarillos. It was at that point that he drove back around and cut them off to confront them.


    Once again, I am accepting the explanation for now. Additionally, I can believe that he was the perpetrator and a victim.
    It does not look like you have read the actual transcripts by your responses. Can you quote the specific portions from the transcripts where Wilson says he was called about the cigarillo robbery, and what parts you find "far-fetched" compared to the investigator, ME, and the CSI testimony of the physical evidence.

    http://www.nola.com/news/ferguson/ferguson-all-1.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Raphael View Post
    I dunno, we had a situation here in NZ where a chap had been threatening cops. Then there was an incident and we had an Armed Offenders Squad callout to deal with him (NZ cops do not typically carry firearms). The ratbag told the cops he had a gun, and supposedly went for it, so they shot him. When they went to help he told them he had a grenade so they backed off (he had neither). And he is now complaining about why did the cops have to shoot him (he's spending the rest of his life in a wheel chair)
    (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...-was-justified )
    Interesting, thanks.

    The statistics I see racing around social media leave me unconvinced that there are no alternatives to shooting to kill, though I wonder if part of the issue is that guns are so much more prevalent in the US, and that naturally there will be more threats.

    Leave a comment:


  • fm93
    replied
    Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post
    Not to mention a moving target. The local advice around these parts of remote Alaska is that if you are going to carry a revolver for bear defense you need to be able to hit a moving target about the size of a bowling ball with at least 4 of 6 shots in under 6 seconds. It's been estimated that to gain that level of proficiency you need to put about 600 pounds of lead down rage in training. That's 600 pounds and not rounds.
    I don't think most departments are able, even if they are willing, to devote that much time and $$ to get their officers to that level.

    *edit* btw that 600 pounds of lead works out to about 12,300 rounds in a 44 mag
    Well, I didn't say that I believed shooting to wound was a viable option, so I have no clue why you guys keep discussing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • fm93
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    no. They only had a limited number of them and he was only in one training session where he got to try it out one time.
    So the fact that they had such a short limit and that he only had one training session before going out to do a job in which he might need to use a taser is a problem, isn't it?

    He already had his gun out from the first altercation in the car. He could not reach his pepper spray during that altercation since it was on the back of his belt on his left side and Brown was trying to grab his gun.
    Right...but then, according to Wilson's own testimony, Brown started running away. It takes barely a second to locate and secure the pepper spray before getting out of the car to chase after him.

    Why do you keep trying to make up excuses for Brown?
    I'm not. Although aspects of Wilson's testimony personally sound far-fetched to me, I'm going along with them for now, since, you know, Brown can't offer his side of the story. I'm just trying to figure out what could've been done to keep Brown from dying.

    He was a criminal and attacked a police officer and would have killed the cop if he had the chance. Instead he got shot and died. It had nothing to do with him being black, and everything to do with him being a thug. Wilson even said he just asked Brown to move out of the street. If he had done so, Wilson would have driven on and Brown would have not been shot and would have had a chance to get away with his robbery of the store. Instead he decided to confront the cop and attack him.
    Again, for now I'm accepting his testimony, although technically, he said that they were moving out of the street when he noticed the cigarillos. It was at that point that he drove back around and cut them off to confront them.

    That you keep refusing to accept any explanation and think that no matter what that Brown was the victim here instead of the perpetrator
    Once again, I am accepting the explanation for now. Additionally, I can believe that he was the perpetrator and a victim.

    This isn't a TV cop show where they can just whip out a can of mace or a taser to slow someone down. It was real life
    Yes, and in real life, mace and tasers exist precisely to slow down and stop someone who's threatening you.

    and Brown was threatening Wilson's life. Wilson was justified in using deadly force.
    That's what I'm disputing. Wilson has every right to self-defense, but I'm still hesitant to declare that he should've used deadly (rather than simply disabling) force.

    If we truly consider ourselves pro-life, then we have to consistently apply this great value and regard for life to everyone, not just to the unborn. The mere fact that a person's life was being threatened does not give that person the right to end the life of the one threatening him, unless literally every other option has been exhausted...and I'm not sure that was the case.
    Last edited by fm93; 11-26-2014, 05:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raphael
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    If shooting to wound is so difficult, then what's the explanation for the numbers going around about how police shooting deaths in almost every Western country dwarfs those of the US/are close to nonexistent? (Genuine question here.)
    I dunno, we had a situation here in NZ where a chap had been threatening cops. Then there was an incident and we had an Armed Offenders Squad callout to deal with him (NZ cops do not typically carry firearms). The ratbag told the cops he had a gun, and supposedly went for it, so they shot him. When they went to help he told them he had a grenade so they backed off (he had neither). And he is now complaining about why did the cops have to shoot him (he's spending the rest of his life in a wheel chair)
    (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...-was-justified )

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    If shooting to wound is so difficult, then what's the explanation for the numbers going around about how police shooting deaths in almost every Western country dwarfs those of the US/are close to nonexistent? (Genuine question here.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    The guy from the video I posted earlier didn't go down easy either.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post
    Not to mention a moving target. The local advice around these parts of remote Alaska is that if you are going to carry a revolver for bear defense you need to be able to hit a moving target about the size of a bowling ball with at least 4 of 6 shots in under 6 seconds. It's been estimated that to gain that level of proficiency you need to put about 600 pounds of lead down rage in training. That's 600 pounds and not rounds.
    I don't think most departments are able, even if they are willing, to devote that much time and $$ to get their officers to that level.

    *edit* btw that 600 pounds of lead works out to about 12,300 rounds in a 44 mag
    In fairness, a bear does not go down easy.

    Leave a comment:


  • alaskazimm
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    It seems to me that a simple trip to a gun range might cure a lot of people of that thinking. Twenty yards (for example) isn't all that far until you're actually trying to shoot accurately at that distance with a handgun. Most people would be shocked at their inaccuracy.
    Not to mention a moving target. The local advice around these parts of remote Alaska is that if you are going to carry a revolver for bear defense you need to be able to hit a moving target about the size of a bowling ball with at least 4 of 6 shots in under 6 seconds. It's been estimated that to gain that level of proficiency you need to put about 600 pounds of lead down rage in training. That's 600 pounds and not rounds.
    I don't think most departments are able, even if they are willing, to devote that much time and $$ to get their officers to that level.

    *edit* btw that 600 pounds of lead works out to about 12,300 rounds in a 44 mag
    Last edited by alaskazimm; 11-26-2014, 02:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zymologist
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It seems that we've covered the infeasibility of shooting to wound (outside scripted movies and TV shows) ad nauseam. I cannot believe that anyone still thinks that is a viable option.
    It seems to me that a simple trip to a gun range might cure a lot of people of that thinking. Twenty yards (for example) isn't all that far until you're actually trying to shoot accurately at that distance with a handgun. Most people would be shocked at their inaccuracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    Which is a problem, isn't it? Shouldn't he have been carrying one?
    no. They only had a limited number of them and he was only in one training session where he got to try it out one time.

    This type of pepper spray supposedly has an effective range of twenty feet, while this supposedly can shoot up to eighteen feet. Wilson claims that the final shot was fired when Brown was about eight to ten feet away--if he had time to fire a gun, it seems to me that he also could've had time to whisk out and activate the spray.
    He already had his gun out from the first altercation in the car. He could not reach his pepper spray during that altercation since it was on the back of his belt on his left side and Brown was trying to grab his gun.

    Why do you keep trying to make up excuses for Brown? He was a criminal and attacked a police officer and would have killed the cop if he had the chance. Instead he got shot and died. It had nothing to do with him being black, and everything to do with him being a thug. Wilson even said he just asked Brown to move out of the street. If he had done so, Wilson would have driven on and Brown would have not been shot and would have had a chance to get away with his robbery of the store. Instead he decided to confront the cop and attack him.

    That you keep refusing to accept any explanation and think that no matter what that Brown was the victim here instead of the perpetrator shows that you live in a fantasy world. This isn't a TV cop show where they can just whip out a can of mace or a taser to slow someone down. It was real life and Brown was threatening Wilson's life. Wilson was justified in using deadly force.

    Leave a comment:


  • fm93
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Wilson did not carry a taser
    Which is a problem, isn't it? Shouldn't he have been carrying one?

    and pepper spray has a very limited distance of use.
    This type of pepper spray supposedly has an effective range of twenty feet, while this supposedly can shoot up to eighteen feet. Wilson claims that the final shot was fired when Brown was about eight to ten feet away--if he had time to fire a gun, it seems to me that he also could've had time to whisk out and activate the spray.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Wilson did not carry a taser, and pepper spray has a very limited distance of use.
    And, unlike mace, pepper spray has been known to merely further infuriate the attacker and do nothing whatsoever to stop them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    I'm not sure how viable the option is (I understand that it may be difficult to precisely pull off), but as I said, there appear to have been alternatives to shooting him at all.
    Yeah, he could have let Brown get his gun and shot him instead.


    That last part is true, but according to Wilson's testimony, Brown had initially started to run away, and Wilson had then gotten out of the car and chased after him. I believe he could've quickly grabbed the taser and spray before leaving the car to chase Brown. After all, the problem of being in close quarters and within a confined space doesn't apply outside on the run.


    I agree that that would be dumb, except that to me, it's so extraordinary that I have difficulty believing that it happened precisely that way.
    Do you think tasers are that accurate?

    And he already wounded Brown and shot off a couple of rounds that caused Brown to run off. Yet even though he was wounded, he turned around and came back to attack Wilson. Brown was the criminal here. He was a bully and a thief. He robbed the store, provoked a policeman, then attacked him in his own car and tried to get his gun, then ran off and turned around and came back at Wilson. If the first shots didn't stop him, then no warning shot, or wounding shot or even taser would have made a difference. The cop was defending his life. He had a right to shoot Brown and he did.

    As to why? Brown was bigger than anyone else, and he was obviously used to using his size to get his way. He thought he could intimidate anyone, including a cop. Obviously he was wrong.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
6 responses
45 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
42 responses
231 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
32 responses
176 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
73 responses
299 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X