What makes you think a fatal outcome can be avoided when someone comes at a couple of cops brandishing a knife, refuses to stop or drop the knife, yelling "Shoot me! Shoot me! Kill me!" while doing it? You see to think that the cops had other realistic, reasonable options. They didn't.
True, but not just in this case, he said: " you pull the trigger as many times as needed for the person to be dead". You can't tell me that it has to end this way every time. Does a person really have to be dead for a cop to gain control over situation?
No, you pull the trigger until the threat is ended. Often that means in effect until the perp is dead, but not always. If they decide to obey commands - stop and drop the weapon in particular - then you should stop shooting. If they are on the ground or on their knees (effectively immobile at that point in time) and they have no weapon in their hands, then you should stop shooting. It usually ends with a dead person, because most people don;t stop or drop the weapon until it's too late. But not always. This is what I find disturbing about the Brown case. Even if there was a struggle for the officer's weapon, if reports are true that brown turned around and put his hands up, then at that point the officer should have stopped shooting. I am not saying that is what happened - there are too many disparate reports out know to know - but if it is what happened, then the cop is in the wrong and should have stopped using deadly force at that point. (Brown still probably would have died of the wounds already sustained... but it's the principal of the thing)
Brown would have almost certainly survived all but the very last gunshot wound to the top of his head. The gunshot wound through the eye socket and down through the mouth would be really messy to clean up, and left permanent damage, but he'd have probably made it. If the guy really did get down and put his hands up, then they should fry the cop, but there's really no good way of knowing for sure because eyewitness accounts have been so sketchy and I don't know of a video.
Agreed. what I get from the headshot was that he was already falling over, otherwise the trajectory doesn't make sense.
In my head, I see it as someone running towards the shooter and getting tripped up by the shot that hit him in the right pec, he then fell through the spray of fire for the last 2 rounds. If he was standing still, I'd think that shot would make him fall backwards, or not at all which would make the final 2 shots impossible.
Now, if he turned around and ran at the cop, that is another story. Whether he had a weapon in his hands or not, if he'd already tried to take the cop's weapon once, and he stopped, turned, and rushed at the officer again, then that is a justifiable shooting. but at this point, there are too many inconsistent witness accounts to make a judgement. eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable; people lie, forget things, don;t understand what they saw, missed things but have their brains fill in gaps... It all tends to break down once they get on the stand. A LOT of these witnesses are going to regret ever having been a part of this, because they are all going to get called and they are all going to be ripped to pieces by sleazy, conniving, but intelligent lawyers. And there's a good chance that a reasonable measure of truth will come out in the process. But not before then.
Entirely possible. The head shot only makes sense if his head was tilted downwards towards the cop - either rushing head first, already falling, or a combination of the two.
That's the most tricky one, if it came first (if Brown was rushing him head first) why would he keep shooting? If it came last, is it execution? We just don't know what happened, we have little bit of facts available, one of the facts is that the cop's face was swollen. That means that Brown was hitting him, if he was hitting the cop, it can be assumed that he also rushed him head first, now when did that shot happen we dont know. If it goes to court, we'll find out more, until then it's all assumptions.
Law Enforcement training routinely includes the prohibition against shooting a fleeing felon. In this case, possibly two felonies had already been committed: the store robbery and the assault on a police officer. Apparently Brown was fleeing the scene and if he was shot at, it would be a violation of basic police practice. However, if he charged the officer who has already been seriously injured then lethal force would be appropriate with warnings to stop. I pity the grand jury that has to sort this out. The pressure is going to be enormous. I suspect that the officer will be no billed by the local grand jury and charged by the feds, perhaps a civil rights violation.
Well he'd better be charged by someone or that lynch mob in the streets is likely to turn more violent than they have been so far then again, they'd probably do the same if he was charged and exonerated.
Exactly, lynch mobs such as the one that has formed in Ferguson want a lynching and won't be satisfied with anything less than a conviction and prison time.
Yep. They aren't interested in justice. If they were, then they'd wait for the facts to come out. They have already made up their minds (courts and evidence be damned) and want a sacrificial lamb. At this point, if the cop isn't prosecuted and convicted, it will simply result in more violence. The governor is probably pressing hard to see that happen. I hope the cop has a good lawyer, because they are going to try to fix this one against him, facts be damned. The politicians will do their best to serve up his head on a platter, regardless of whether or not it was justified; better his than their s, from their POV. And the "protesters"... They will not be satisfied unless the cop is convicted. If he isn't, then yeah - it'll be the King riots all over again. I'd imagine they will go for a change of venue, but if you're in St. Louis... better plan for it now. It's gonna be ugly no matter how it plays out in court. And God help you if it doesn't get there...
I think both sides ( for the most part) already made up their minds. If someone thinks cop was right, they'll look for info that show so, n dismiss the other side, same goes for the other group. If it goes to court, we'll have a lot more fact and evidence available. If they present strong case with evidence that proves the cop did it in self-defense i don't see a point in riots, although they will probably happen. However if they present evidence n facts that cop was wrong, n he's let go (not guilty), then that's a different story, I mean I wouldn't participate but i could understand why . There should be enough presented for one to have a clear judgment.
To the OP: Houston is so bogged down with reports and property crimes, they only have the time and the resources to deal with MAJOR cases. Do you know how many burglaries (what you described isn't a robbery) they handle every day? There's isn't enough man power to handle it. Out here in the 'burbs it's quite different. It's quite simple, but I can't help myself but to post in this thread. You bring a taser to a fist fight fight. You bring a lethal weapon to a weapon fight. End of story. Treeman; I've wholeheartedly agreed with every thing you've posted the past few days.
To put it quite simply: if you are in a situation where you are capable of thinking "Well, I'll just put a bullet into his leg to slow him down", you are not in a position where you should be using the gun at all. I do think cops have somewhat forgotten that guns are tools of absolute last resort, but when you are in a concern where you believe it should be used, the life of the suspect is no longer a major priority.
I feel the same way. My car was broken in last year and I didn't even bother to give them a call. There was an armed burglary/robbery at my complex and an HPD officer came by to give a crime "seminar" to the residents. He stood up there and whined and b****ed for an hour about how hard his job was and how little he was paid. I don't count on the cops to do much, most rational people do not. They are there to write tickets, arrest people, investigate more serious crimes (except rape because that would be too difficult and they girls are lying duh), and clean up messes. You can't really expect more, in their defense they are limited by funding, a small pool of candidates, and the nature of crime. If someone breaks in to my place I will be defending myself and calling the cops later.
