You should know about what's happening in Ferguson.

What do you mean? People can and do have their own dash cams and personal video recorders and record police all the time, and the Supreme Court decided less than two years ago that people cannot be prevented from, or prosecuted for, filming the police in public. It's protected by the First Amendment.

It's the only thing I can think to compare it to because cops don't shoot unarmed white men.

You expect them to shoot at them point blank. Then continue to shoot them as they are surrendering 35 feet from the police car where the altercation took place? With the gun he didn't wrestle away from the cop, if that's even what he was doing?

aren't strongly political threads like these usually locked down on these forums? i know it's an important issue but i don't know if it's suitable material to be here, and i have seem them being locked for this very reason before. it also typically encourages circular arguments and jerkiness in the comments?

obviously not a fan of shutting people up for no reason, just seems like this isn't really the place to discuss these things and they could become overly heated.

It goes by pretty quickly on the video, but it was a thrown object, no matter what it was.

And a plastic bottle did not cause this to happen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28781440

This isn't a plastic bottle either.

@spaceinsomniac said:

@defaultprophet said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@starvinggamer said:

Got nothing much to add other than this: https://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-please-enact-new-federal-laws-to-protect-citizens-from-police-violence-and-misconduct

We don't really know the facts with Mike Brown, but there can't be any argument that what the police are doing right now is "right". It's fucking terrifying.

However, I will argue that not everything the police are doing is WRONG.

For example, in this video, you can clearly see that the police allowed a peaceful demonstration to take place for hours, even into the night, until someone happened to throw a molotov cocktail. As far as the appropriateness of their response after that violent act, that is certainly up for debate.

Uh yeah that's a plastic bottle. There's no flame, you can see it clearly when he winds up to throw it. Nothing is lit. It's not a molotov.

http://i.imgur.com/PwDaxKc.jpg

It goes by pretty quickly on the video, but it was a thrown object, no matter if it was glass or plastic.

But a plastic bottle did not cause this to happen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28781440

This isn't a plastic bottle either.

That may be the case but that video linked isn't evidence of that protest being broken up because a molotov was thrown like the user said it was.

Topics like this aren't forbidden, it's the behavior it brings out in some people that is the problem. We're watching the topic and will close it if gets too far out of hand.

I hope it doesn't get locked. I like discussing these kinds of things here.

I just hope it can all clam down, so towns people and the police can sit down and talk.

I'm sorry but I think the police force has a lot to answer for and that many of cops on that force need to be investigated and suspended. And, I think the police union needs to make sure that happens fully and in the public eye even if that is not what they or the police officers want...they should do that voluntarily not because they have to by law. This has gone beyond a local matter or a matter that can be handled with the rules as they are.

I think like any country, this should end with a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In most counties it works like this: Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution. In this case ONLY the police who cannot be charged with crimes or who were standing the line would be allowed the latter.

This. There was 1 witness, the guy's friend. If he didn't hate the police before, he does now after seeing his friend get killed by them (regardless of wheather he deserved it).

1 witness shouldn't be enough for a verdict. They'll need lots of other evidence.

In the United States, police absolutely can and do get charged with criminal offenses even if they were on duty when the alleged crimes occurred.

@giantlizardking:

On the topic of shooting multiple times, it's common practice in the shooting world (military, law enforcement, personal defense) to "shoot until the threat stops" - that can mean as little as one shot, or an entire magazine. Handguns in particular really suck as far as effectiveness goes, so it's not uncommon to have to shoot someone 4,5,6,7 times or more before they stop. It really depends on if you hit a vital organ or a bone that incapacitates the person. The whole "2 shots to the chest, one to the head" thing is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't always work that way. Watch some videos of shooting and you'll see what I mean.

Another thing is stress - if you are in a situation like that, you have what is called a "body alarm reaction" - you get an adrenaline dump, your hands start shaking, you get tunnel vision, you lose your hearing and your motor skills degrade and things like that - your body basically goes into a panic attack - so it is entirely possible for someone who isn't well trained or isn't used to that type of thing to just start shooting like crazy as a startle response.

So yeah, hearing that he might have been shot 7 or 8 times isn't a surprise. That's what people who carry guns for a living are trained to do, and that's what your mind wants you to do when you have a body alarm reaction. It's 100% natural.

The question isn't why he was shot so many times, the question is did the officer use the correct amount of force for the situation? And was there a way it could be avoided?
The answers to those questions will determine whether or not the officer was justified in the shooting, and if not, how should they be charged.

Like, perhaps, eight entry and exit wounds in the front and back, including the head? Because if that's there, that 1 witness should absolutely be enough for a verdict. I believe that I read there's more than one witness now anyway.

I'm all for letting the officer have his day in court, but can you think of any situation that would justify shooting an unarmed man eight times? If that's what really happened, I find it hard to come up with any sort of reasoning to defend that officer's actions.

@defaultprophet: Um, no? Is that really the way you read what I was saying?

Alot of people need to read recent history, for in 2011 a very similar series of events happened in England. In this case a white male linked to criminal activities was shot unarmed by police (A slightly different starter point) however what happened after was peaceful protests that some turned violent. These eventually turned into riots and eventually organised looting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

Many of the events that sparked several cities younger underbelly to go on mass destructive looting "Riots" are being replicated in Ferguson, except one of two things are different (the other is questions racial discrimination) the English riots were very poorly manage in the opposite way. Ferguson has many heavily armed and protected police, England had many unarmed and unprotected police. The English riots were caused by perceived weakness and criminals instigated the mass looting. Often police would line up with riot gear and accept all that was thrown at them. There was no fear from the criminals.

This case Ferguson has cracked down hard....except there is now lots of fear. Fear from every civilian and more so from ethnic civilians, as the initial crime that brought this about was supposedly an unarmed harmless black male gunned down by a crazy cop (one line of possible description) so with this huge force of armed police pointing guns at everyone and arresting reporters, then a country built on civil liberties and rights feel's even more pressured by the "man".

This could spark a such large rioting as England did for the opposite reasons.

@mcfart: The shooting happened on a very populated neighborhood street. There was more witnesses besides the guys friend. Hopefully in the coming days more information will come out.

So tell me, what exactly does his friend being black have to do with anything? What are you trying to say?

. I'm a big opponent of police brutality, but if somebody is on the verge of overpowering a police officer and attempting to take their gun I expect that police officer to shoot that individual as a matter of protecting themselves and the public.

The way that reads to me is you are excusing the cops actions by saying the victim allegedly trying to take the cop's gun is justification for the event that happened

Well this seems like good news...I think....

St. Louis County police will no longer be involved in policing Ferguson

@defaultprophet: Well yes if you try and overpower a cop and take his gun I do believe the cop is within his rights to shoot, and shoot to kill in the context of that altercation. And that would happen to be at point blank by nature of the conflict. But all of this that you said? No.

"Then continue to shoot them as they are surrendering 35 feet from the police car where the altercation took place? With the gun he didn't wrestle away from the cop, if that's even what he was doing?"

Never did I say I supported the cop shooting somebody surrendering. You are assuming the eye witness account is being 100% truthful, which is not an assumption that is safe to make. If his account can be substantiated by the autopsy then yeah the cop straight up murdered the guy.

So even if the witness account isn't 100% truthful we do know, factually, that he was shot in the back, chest, and head. His body was 35 feet from the cop car.

No I meant cops actually having cameras on their person filming all interactions. I know people can legally film police, but we all know the cops do everything they can to try and stop that from happening (as seen here in Ferguson). I think if cops were required to wear a camera at all times a record all interactions, you'd see problems like this go away pretty quick. Everyone acts nice for the camera when they know it's on!

@defaultprophet: What exactly is damning about that? As was said earlier in this thread the military and law enforcement are taught to shoot to kill, right. Could it not have taken that many shots to subdue the threat? Why is it relevant where his body is exactly? I ask because I don't know. Does that some how invalidate the cop's story?

I want to reiterate that I'm not on the cop's side. I'm only advocating that people don't rush to judgement. Generally I don't really like the police or law enforcement in general.

@defaultprophet: It is entirely possible that he attacked the cop, the cop shot him at close range, he ran away and the cop shot him while fleeing. That would explain the body being 35 feet away and that would explain why he was shot all over his body. Watch some videos of police shootings when you get a chance. Stuff like that is pretty common. Just because someone gets shot once doesn't immediately mean that they are going to fall down and be out of the fight.

It's relevant cause he A. Didn't get the cops gun(If he was trying to get it) and B. Wasn't a threat to the cop when he's 35 feet away.

@giantlizardking: Wrong. Even if you assume he assaulted the officer and all the witnesses are lying, after that first shot the threat is fleeing. The officer should call it in and pursue. You do not continue to shoot to kill when he is retreating. Forget about whether or not he surrendered, Michael got 35 feet away from the car, he wasn't a threat (if he ever was one in the first place). Shooting to kill at that point is unacceptable. The officer committed murder, and instead the police continue to break the law by not releasing his name or the incident report.

@defaultprophet: how do we know the altercation did t take place 35 feet from the car though?

And yeah, it's pretty apparent the guy didn't get the gun. You shoot somebody to keep that from happening, not because they already did it. Hard to shoot somebody without a gun.

Because the cop and witness both say it took place at the driver's side window while the cop was still in the driver's seat?

That is incorrect. In the military you are taught to shoot to kill. Police Officers are taught to shoot until the threat is removed.

That's a pretty important distinction.

@defaultprophet: ah see that's the detail I was missing. Yup that sounds a bit more damning. Do the cops have an official reason why he was so far away from the car then?

In instances of defensive (We'll have to see what the FBI says about that) shootings the person doing the shooting has some strange reactions including not hearing the firearm discharge. People have reported that post shooting, they had not realized they'd emptied their firearm until well after the fact. The person being shot will not instantly die or even react to being shot after the initial impact outside of some specific scenarios. Shootings like this are an extremely chaotic situation, which is why police shootings are something that are studied after the fact with a fine tooth comb. See the coverage of the 1986 Miami FBI shootout Wikipedia link for a brief overview. (Which is a shootout and not a shooting with only one firearm, but note how the FBI agents reacted under stress)

Thats all I have to say about this particular matter.

As far as I can tell they give no reasoning.

Incapacitation, specifically. Whether they died in the process or not isn't the goal. It's to stop the aggressive action. The same rules citizens have to abide by for self defense apply to the police, too.

@xceagle: Yeah I agree, I didn't realize it was an established fact that the guy ran after being shot.

@reverendk: GREAT link. I was about to post that if the discussion got any deeper on the subject. Gunfights and defensive shootings are extremely chaotic and happen extremely fast, so you don't really have as much time to think as you do act... You just need to hope you make the right decisions at the right time. That's the hard part.

This part I will take exception with. It would be insane to release his name, as it would any defendant of a case this heated.

If this were a black man accused of killing a little white kid, and the KKK were already threatening the lives of this man and his family, I'm sure you would be outraged if the police released his name after that.

Even if this police officer is the scum of the earth, his family do not deserve retribution. As long as he has his day in court, there is NO reason why his name should be public knowledge at this point. Not only would it put his family in danger, but even other people who happen to have the same name would likely be affected.

You're lumping all the protesters in with a minority of people. And in either case what the cop did was illegal given how excessive the force used against the kid was. Especially given where the kid's body was found versus the cop that shot him.

@sethphotopoulos: read the rest of the thread duder. After I wrote that.

Yeah cooks and truck drivers get deployed too I guess

@spaceinsomniac: Yeah, I forgot where I read it, but I saw a story a few hours ago that said that one of the Ferguson officers was identified and he was receiving death threats. He and his family were put in protective custody. So yeah, releasing anyones name at this point is a bad idea. That'd be just asking for someone to show up and try to hurt them. The name will be released in time, but now with things running so hot that would be the worst thing anyone could do.

Like I said before, keep in mind that the FBI was JUST getting involved as of yesterday. They've barely had any time to start investigating yet. Calm down and stop asking for the information - nobody is going to hear anything for at least another few days, if not a few weeks. Until we what's up for real everything else is just speculation and hyperbole.

@elko84: not sure if that was a jab at truck drivers in the military but those dudes roll pretty heavy as driving on roads in combat zones these days is pretty dangerous...

@librorumprohibitorum: Yeah It's no-where. I thought it was weird.

So, I hear the Obama speech regarding the incident was quite bad. What's up with that?

Yeah dude. A lot deaths and serious injuries were from roadside ambushes and IEDs. Not sure if it is still like that now, but I know that was some serious shit in Iraq at one time. Those Motor T guys and gals have their work cut out for them. Running convoys is serious business.

What was the whole Anonymous Story?

They think they know the guy but the cops are saying they've never heard of the guy but anony thinks they're hiding something about this guy...

I see what you're getting at but man that's kinda rude. I was a convoy escort overseas in 2009-2010.

Still, the police doesn't have machine guns, fragmentation grenades, or anti-armor rockets, nor are they using tanks, attack helicopters, and fixed-wing strike aircraft. It's not a valid comparison. Yeah they're wearing more armor but that's purely defensive, guess what they're carrying shields too - it's a different kind of mission.

I reiterate, not trying to take sides (I'm not even American) but the comparison people keep making is irksome

Police in my area have deployed tanks to go up against people with normal guns.

Its sad I feel safer without the police than with them yet here we are. I've seen in the past few months more incidents of police shooting or brutalising innocent people than in a long time and that's sad.

@giantstalker: They do have machine guns, some of them were set up pointing at crowds (they were never intending on using them I hope). But I totally get your point. There are huge differences.

Anyway, I actually just wanted post this video of Al Jazeera America getting hit with tear gas...

Yep. Sadly, if the reporters in Ferguson are to be believe, however, it doesn't seem like these cops care much about the right to record. I heard some city in California made it mandatory for cops to have video cameras attached to their shirts at all times and it drastically reduced violence and complaints. I think that should be a requirement nationwide.