Michael Brown shooting

[cOoTeR]

Last two shots, he was on his back.

Do you think you could react make the split second life or death decision to decide if the movements he was making from his back were an attempt to get up and continue coming at you if you were in the cops shoes any better than they did? If so maybe you should become a use of force instructor for the police and teach them how to make those decisions better.

[Scruit]

Do you think you could react make the split second life or death decision to decide if the movements he was making from his back were an attempt to get up and continue coming at you if you were in the cops shoes any better than they did? If so maybe you should become a use of force instructor for the police and teach them how to make those decisions better.

 

http://ohioriders.net/index.php?/topic/105698-michael-brown-shooting/page-14#entry1409748

[Tpoppa]

And yet all throughout this country every single day, we do not hear of too many bad run ins with police and them abusing their power.

That's statement doesn't sound particularly well informed.

 

Try to gain a bit of perspective:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-03/iceland-grieves-after-police-kill-man-first-time-its-history

[Scruit]

So police should just shoot to incapacitate huh? 

 

Yes, exactly.  "Shoot to stop the threat"  Once the threat is stopped, stop shooting.  (Of course, allowing time for the officer to recognize the threat has stopped)

Edited August 24, 2014 by Scruit

[cOoTeR]

http://ohioriders.net/index.php?/topic/105698-michael-brown-shooting/page-14#entry1409748

I read that but still don't see why it was relevant to bring up in the manner you did. It's pretty easy to armchair quarterback any decision someone has made. Especially when it's on video and you have the luxury of seeing it in a relaxed stress free environment from a different angle than those involved. We see it on here all the time in the crash threads. Just like riding fight or flight situations cause target fixation and tunnel vision. Graham VS. Connor is the case law that will most likely be used to determine if the shooting above and the Brown shooting are legal. The main part of Graham VS. Connor is to determine if a use of force to affect an arrest is justified based on 3 parts 1.Severity of the crimes the officer believes have been committed 2. The threat posed to officer or general public. 3. Is the suspect attempting to resist arrest or flee. The Court also stated that the use of force should be measured by what the officer knew at the scene, not by the "20/20 vision of hindsight".

[Pokey]

Yes, exactly.  "Shoot to stop the threat"  Once the threat is stopped, stop shooting.  (Of course, allowing time for the officer to recognize the threat has stopped)

 

Well......it seems some do in fact shoot to stop the threat, it just takes emptying an entire magazine to do so. I will not pretend to understand what it is like to be in law enforcement or a trained soldier who is in a hostile combatant situation, but I am betting that many times they are not fully aware of what is going on or what went down until the smoke clears. Shit happens fast, shit happens really fast when you are being attacked and trying to protect yourself or stop a threat. And that adrenaline is still flowing even after a threat is stopped, but yet sometimes we still continue to be in attack or protect mode. If the officer assassinated him, then he needs to pay the consequences, but once again enters the realm of a "perceived threat". You happen to see the size of that Michael Brown, he ain't no baby. Chris Rock said it best on one of his stand up bits......and this goes for ANYONE.  

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2014 by Pokey

[Tpoppa]

I will not pretend to understand what it is like to be in law enforcement or a trained soldier who is in a hostile combatant situation

Plenty on this board can give you first hand accounts.

 

Here's a tip:  law enforcement training is not the same as training for Marines or soldiers.  The training is different because the objectives are different.

[Pokey]

Plenty on this board can give you first hand accounts.

 

Here's a tip:  law enforcement training is not the same as training for Marines or soldiers.  The training is different because the objectives are different.

 

No question about the different training and skill set, so should Police have to be injured or wounded before they can protect themselves from an obvious or perceived threat? Many do make the right call when it comes down to it, but we only hear about the bad situations or the ones that the media has turned into a racial frenzy. This is another race baiting situation yet again, maybe any area that is predominately "non white" should only have non white law enforcement? Of course I am betting we would rarely if ever hear of good cop bad cop nearly as much, ya know especially with all of the color on color killing going on all over the country in major cities. We do have an epidemic for sure, and it is called crime and gang violence. So many bad choices are being made, and they are leading to very bad outcomes.

[Josh1234]

How many police should die or be injured by trying to "shoot to incapacitate" before we remember the lessons they've learned the hard way?

 

If you decide to use deadly force, then it needs to be deadly.  If there are issues with that, it needs to be when to make the decision, NOT how much force to use.

[Scruit]

How many police should die or be injured by trying to "shoot to incapacitate" before we remember the lessons they've learned the hard way?

 

If you decide to use deadly force, then it needs to be deadly.  If there are issues with that, it needs to be when to make the decision, NOT how much force to use.

 

We have to accept that using deadly force is very likely to kill someone.  What we don't accept, though, is that when an officer realizes that he has successfully incapacitated an attacker he cannot keep shooting under the mantra; "Deadly force ... needs to be deadly"    (Not a reference to Brown shooting)

 

Now, when an innocent person is forced into a situation where their life is threatened by the actions of a criminal then I give the innocent person a buttload off leeway in how he effects his defense.  You wanna fire 15 shots?  Fired 15 shots.  That's fine.  Just don't keep firing once it is clear to you that you are now safe.   (It is clear to you means:  You truly understood you were safe at the time - not armchair quarterbacks saying "you have 0.25 seconds to see his head drop down")

[Tpoppa]

I wouldn't fault a cop for using deadly force in a kill or be killed situation.  We all deserve to live.

 

I would fault a cop for using deadly force when they feel their authority is challenged, or to prevent a conflict.  We all deserve to live.

[Steve Butters]

just out of curiousity, and sorry if i missed it earlier....what are your thoughts on the second shooting? *Tpoppa*

[Tpoppa]

I haven't seen the video or read about it.  So, no opinion I'd be willing to share.

[madcat6183]

What about the white kid who was killed by a black cop recently?  Thoughts on that?  Oh, probably haven't heard about it yet.  I don't know much about it, friend posted it on Facebook so it's obviously true.  No rioting, no looting, no news. 

Edited August 25, 2014 by madcat6183

[Scruit]

At Brown's funeral, it was said that on the day he died, he was out "spreading the word of Jesus".    I wonder if the word of Jesus is what the convenience store clerk heard.

 

I'm pretty sure the "hands up" story has been told so many times that it no longer matters if it is true or not.  Just as the officer will always be a "cold-blooded executioner of a child", regardless of if it is true or not.

[Scruit]

CNN is reporting that a man has come forward with audio of the shooting (just the gunshots)

 

The clip they played sounded like about a 6 second shooting. 

 

In the first 2 seconds you can hear 7 shots.  Then a 2 second gap, then 5 shots over the next 2 seconds.

 

CNN is working to verify the tapes.    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-airs-alleged-audio-from-michael-brown-shooting/

 

One commentator already said it proved the shooting was murder because the gap in the shooting shows the officer had time to re-evaluate.  I'm not sure the audio (if it is true) shows much of anything.   This may be like the orbital fracture CT scan...  

 

On the off-chance it IS true...

 

1) Compare it with the video recorded statement of the guy in the scene who said; "He doubled back on the cop.  At first we thought he was missing... He just kept coming ... The cop was just dumping on him...  "   What was it about what the man saw that made him think the shots were missing?  Did the Officer also think he was missing?

 

2) The audio sounds like a voice mail where some guy is trying to chat up a lady.  I notice that regardless of how loud the gunshots are, there is not a moment's hesitation in his voice.  I expected to hear some kind of reaction in his voice.  Seems off to me.

 

3) If Brown transitioned from one behavior in which shooting him was justified to a different behavior where shooting was not justified, then would that 2 second gap be enough time for him to react by stopping his use of deadly force?  Did brown have time to turn and put his hands up, and for the officer to perceive that?  If Brown was running, would have have time to stop, turn and put his hands up?  Takes me about 1.5 seconds to turn around and put my hands up from a standing position.  I wonder hos that time would be be if I was running and stopped/turned/hands up?   I'd be interested to know how long these witnesses claim his hands were up.  A second?  A few seconds?  10 seconds?

 

4) How does this match up with the witnesses?    

- Dorian Johnson said the officer shot one time at Brown as he ran and that shot made Brown give up.    There is no lone shot on the audio.  This audio is incompatible with his story.  

- Michael Brady claimed he saw Wilson firing on Brown as Brown fled.  He then ran outside in time to see the final shots.  Unless he got outside in 2 seconds, this audio and his story are incompatible. This is what I like to call the Grits defense.  My Cousin Vinnie showed me it.

- Piaget Crenshaw said the officer chased and shot at the fleeing Brown, who reacted to being shot by turning around and putting his his hands up.  The officer shot two more times.   The second volley of shots was more than two, which is a minor inconsistency.  More troubling is that I find it difficult to believe that Brown stops from a run, turned around and put his hands up in two seconds.  He story is incompatible with the audio.

- Tiffany Mtichell sad effectively the same thing - that Brown was shot in the back as he ran, and he stopped, turned around and put his hands up.  Same problem as Crenshaw's testimony.   

[Pokey]

The truth may never surface, and even if it does.......some people cannot handle the truth or will not accept it. Until people take responsibility for their own actions and decisions, this shit will continue to go down.

[cOoTeR]

CNN is reporting that a man has come forward with audio of the shooting (just the gunshots)

The clip they played sounded like about a 6 second shooting.

In the first 2 seconds you can hear 7 shots. Then a 2 second gap, then 5 shots over the next 2 seconds.

CNN is working to verify the tapes. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-airs-alleged-audio-from-michael-brown-shooting/

One commentator already said it proved the shooting was murder because the gap in the shooting shows the officer had time to re-evaluate. I'm not sure the audio (if it is true) shows much of anything. This may be like the orbital fracture CT scan...

On the off-chance it IS true...

1) Compare it with the video recorded statement of the guy in the scene who said; "He doubled back on the cop. At first we thought he was missing... He just kept coming ... The cop was just dumping on him... " What was it about what the man saw that made him think the shots were missing? Did the Officer also think he was missing?

2) The audio sounds like a voice mail where some guy is trying to chat up a lady. I notice that regardless of how loud the gunshots are, there is not a moment's hesitation in his voice. I expected to hear some kind of reaction in his voice. Seems off to me.

3) If Brown transitioned from one behavior in which shooting him was justified to a different behavior where shooting was not justified, then would that 2 second gap be enough time for him to react by stopping his use of deadly force? Did brown have time to turn and put his hands up, and for the officer to perceive that? If Brown was running, would have have time to stop, turn and put his hands up? Takes me about 1.5 seconds to turn around and put my hands up from a standing position. I wonder hos that time would be be if I was running and stopped/turned/hands up? I'd be interested to know how long these witnesses claim his hands were up. A second? A few seconds? 10 seconds?

4) How does this match up with the witnesses?

- Dorian Johnson said the officer shot one time at Brown as he ran and that shot made Brown give up. There is no lone shot on the audio. This audio is incompatible with his story.

- Michael Brady claimed he saw Wilson firing on Brown as Brown fled. He then ran outside in time to see the final shots. Unless he got outside in 2 seconds, this audio and his story are incompatible. This is what I like to call the Grits defense. My Cousin Vinnie showed me it.

- Piaget Crenshaw said the officer chased and shot at the fleeing Brown, who reacted to being shot by turning around and putting his his hands up. The officer shot two more times. The second volley of shots was more than two, which is a minor inconsistency. More troubling is that I find it difficult to believe that Brown stops from a run, turned around and put his hands up in two seconds. He story is incompatible with the audio.

- Tiffany Mtichell sad effectively the same thing - that Brown was shot in the back as he ran, and he stopped, turned around and put his hands up. Same problem as Crenshaw's testimony.

I'm pretty sure the police will know how many rounds were fired. Unless the officer was carrying a firearm with a magazine that was partially empty and some shell casings were not found for whatever reason.

Even if the audio is from the incident it shows nothing other than the amount of rounds fired and rate of fire. The 2 second gap in the firing also proves nothing. There are several reasons that the gap in shots could have happened. It could show that the officer stopped shooting to reevaluate the situation and determined that deadly force was still necessary.

You seemed to reference shots fired at Browns back a lot even though the family sponsored autopsy showed he was never shot in the back.

It's too bad the investigators are taking their time figuring this out. But I'm glad they are looking into all the FACTS and not just all the bs the media is putting out. Until the investigation is over we are only going to know bits and pieces that may or may not be true.

In the amount of time that they have been investigating the cop involved has not been placed in jail. That shows 1 of two things. The investigation has not shown enough evidence as of yet for the investigators to believe the cop is guilty of wrong doing. Or 2 despite having enough evidence of wrong doing, the public outcry and political pressure the investigators are not going to do what's right by charging the cop. My point being of they were going to find evidence of wrong doing they most likely would have found it by now.

Edited August 26, 2014 by cOoTeR

[Scruit]

You seemed to reference shots fired at Browns back a lot even though the family sponsored autopsy showed he was never shot in the back.

 

 

It is a central part of many eyewitness claims that the officer SHOT AT Brown while he was running away, something that that would be almost impossible to justify in this case and would likely be ruled brutality,  The fact that he was not HIT from the back does not disprove this claim.  If we are to be impartial then we must treat all claims equally until disproven.

 

This audio does not match up with the "shot at while running away" narrative, so it needs to be pointed out that either that claim is bogus or the audio is.  They cannot both be right.

[madcat6183]

2 seconds can mean a ton, maybe he was still charging, maybe he was closing fast and the 2 seconds the officer thought he would stop, but didnt?  Maybe he did execute him, however I do not think 2 seconds gives a person time to walk 30 feet which I believe is what they stated was the shooting distance, and shot him in the head to execute him or whatever.

 

The facts will never come out because there is no video, and the officer will tell his side and only his side since he was the one there that lived.

 

In my books, he did what he had to do to go home at night and that's the end of the story.  Do I believe all cops are all good and always truthful, no, but I also don't believe they are all liars and will just kill someone in cold blood in instances like that.  Premeditated or something sick, sure, but not in cases like this.

 

And for the record I have never had any issues with cops because I do what they ask me to and am always respectful, even when I know 100% I am in the wrong.  Actually the 4 times I've been pulled over I've only gotten 1 ticket. and I attribute that to being respectful and doing exactly as asked because 3 of the other 3 I was speeding way over the limit, or forgot to turn my headlights on, all ticketable. 

[ohiomike]

Boy, so much info keeps coming out, this making that sound incorrect.....but it seems way back near the beginning I remember it being said that while Brown had his hands up, he would not stop but continued advancing toward the officer.  I don't remember it being said whether he was walking or running, but he would not stop.  If in fact this was after the officer and he had been in an physical altercation, isn't his refusal to obey and stop (and I suppose, get down on the ground) enough justification for the officer to shoot Brown to make him stop advancing?

[magley64]

Just about everything imaginable has been said about this case at this point. Brown was running away, brown was charging, brown was surrendering, brown was the cop, brown was going for the gun, brown was kayaking.

Let's hope the real investigators can put together the actual events, and determine what happened, and who is responsible.

[Tpoppa]

Just about everything imaginable has been said about this case at this point. Brown was running away, brown was charging, brown was surrendering, brown was the cop, brown was going for the gun, brown was kayaking.

Let's hope the real investigators can put together the actual events, and determine what happened, and who is responsible.

I remember back in the day when journalists would only report information that was confirmed as fact.

[Scruit]

Isn't that what the police are doing? Only reporting known facts? And they are being lambasted for lack of transparency.

[smccrory]

I remember back in the day when journalists would only report information that was confirmed as fact.

 

Me too, though even then there was a bias we didn't know about.  Journalism is never unbiased - look at how papers reported in the industrial era, though I believe it to be as bad today as it ever was.

 

Oddly enough, sit and watch Al-Jazeera for 15 minutes.  I've seen some pretty good reporting from them.  Not as visually... amazing... as Telemundo News, but still.

Edited August 26, 2014 by smccrory