You are ascribing competence and actual interest to POTUS. That is often a mistake... It's far more likely he's just checking boxes.
What is your view of non lethal force like tasers, pepper spray, etc. ? Were they appropriate in this situation (given the limited info we have)? I thought these items were standard issue. I see them on the belt of many officers where I live, at least that is what I thought they were carrying besides a radio, a pistol, and cuffs.
Let me preface by saying that I am not a cop and can't speak for them. My experience with LTLs is in a military capacity, and I have been in several riots and have used them. I have never had to pull the trigger in a deadly force situation, but I have come close. I have also had a decent amount of civilian firearms training (which in my opinion was far higher quality than than my military training; military training really excels in team-based operations) That said, As far as I know, just about every LEO out there is going to have LTLs such as a tazer, ASP or similar baton, and pepper spray issued to them. They will be trained in their use. The decision of which weapon to use is made at the point of contact and cannot be predicted; only training can prepare one for using the most appropriate weapon at a given time. Also understand that LTLs are still potentially lethal. If a rubber shotgun slug hits you in the forehead because you ducked into it, it just might kill you (don't ask... it wasn't me). Tazers do occasionally kill, and even pepper spray hasn't played nice with everyone's physiology. But they are not designed for that purpose and are less likely to cause that outcome. But as I mentioned, the trick is knowing what to use and when to use it. If you only have a second or two to make that decision, it's easy to understand how one might fall into the trap of defaulting to the most effective option - the lethal one - as that promises you the best odds of surviving what is going to be an unpredictable and likely violent encounter. Even simple fistfights go wrong every day and kill people. If you're armed, then why risk it? It's not an easy answer. I completely understand how a cop can lose his head for just a second or three and end up doing something he will wish he could redo for the rest of his life. There is no easy answer, and it's a damned tough job. I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it.
THANK you! Awesome post. An officer doesn't have to exhaust all of his intermediate weapons before deadly force is deployed. You must overcome the force at hand. There are times where deadly force and a taser would both be justified, but I care about coming home to my wife, so I won't be tasing anyone with a knife or a deadly weapon. An officer has to abide by the same self defense laws as everyone else. I'm not sure where this idea of "they could have shot him in the leg" or suggestion someone using a deadly weapon be met with something less than lethal. ACTION is quicker than REACTION every single time. That plays a big factor in ruling on these deadly force cases. In Harris Co, grand juries have to go through scenarios that show you that you can not react quicker than someone's initial action.
And just to add to the previous post, I am quite sure the cop wishes he'd have used a tazer instead. He looks visibly distressed in the videos (understandably), and I suspect he's going to be gaming the possibilities for the rest of his life. Ideally in this situation no force would have been necessary, but let's assume a couple of things. Say Mr. Brown didn't react well and may have been aggressive; even assume that he attacked the officer while he was still in his vehicle (as seems likely to me, given that it's virtually impossible for someone to grab a 6'4" man by the throat while sitting inside of a patrol car). IF Mr. Brown was that close and personal with the officer inside of the vehicle, then it's not unreasonable to assume that he might have gone for the officer's gun, which would be an event that might justify lethal force. The problem in this case arises when Mr. Brown broke contact with the officer and ran. I haven't seen anything disputing the fact that he tried to flee, and the ballistics indicate that he was not shot in the back, which means that whether he was hit before or after he fled, he stopped at some point and turned around. He was shot from the front. Did he turn around and put his hands up, only to be shot by the officer? If so, then the officer is clearly and unarguably in the wrong. Did he turn around and "bumrush" the officer as the officer claims? If this is what happened, then after the preceding engagement in the vehicle I can understand the officer's willingness to use force. A person who charges at a man known to be armed with a firearm can be assumed to be a person who means to do serious bodily injury with reckless intent. And frankly, given his size, I can understand defaulting to the lethal option under those circumstances. The officer would only have had a split second, with firearm already in hand, whereas a tazer or pepper spray would have taken time to deploy and likely would have been ineffective. It all depends upon how it went down. We'll likely never know.
Good post I agree, but if they had cameras on them n if most of it wasnt swept under a rug/justified. They just might think twice about which weapon to use.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en data-scribe-reduced-action-queue="><p>In this video you see Darren Wilson standing over Brown, and he does NOT have a 'blowout fracture' of his eye socket <a href="http://t.co/dLd0lBmjbr">http://t.co/dLd0lBmjbr</a></p>— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) <a href="https://twitter.com/Green_Footballs/statuses/501768059468533761">August 19, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> So the broken eye socket is slowly being debunked.....not that it was confirmed by any crediable sourse in the first place.
I've seen on this past couple pages a video mentioned of the shooting of Brown. Can y'all repost the link?
Marshall...Lol.. My bad. And possibly because of guys like Timothy McVeigh, Cliven Bundy, etc _ militias... I think it has more to do with people like that than it does 911. And the more the government makes changes _ more people like that will pop up. And to try to control people like that they will have to try to control everyone. The police force doesn't have to be military equipped to handle poor minority neighborhoods.
I couldn't see his eye in that video... But I didn't see him reaching for his eye and or acting like he was injured. You would think he would have touched it at least once and or saw the other officer acknowledging it.
Adrenaline... I've been wounded before in a high stress environment and not once did I hold onto my wound.
It is isn't the militia boogeyman and it isn't the minority neighborhood boogeyman. It is the laws and attitudes post 9/11... Boston was under martial law after the Boston Marathon. The public allowed laws to be passed for "safety" and the genie is out of the bottle.
http://news.msn.com/us/volunteers-a-buffer-between-police-protesters Volunteers a buffer between police, protesters FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — The tall black man walked up and down West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson, Missouri, working a bullhorn, imploring protesters to behave themselves. "All right, y'all doing good!" Malik Zulu Shabazz told one group of young men. "Just keep it peaceful. Keep it peaceful, black man!" Shabazz isn't a police officer. He is president of Black Lawyers for Justice and former chairman of the New Black Panther Party. Those organizations and others, made up mostly of black volunteers, have taken it upon themselves to help ease tensions in Ferguson, confident the protesters are more likely to listen to them than police. In many cases, they're right. Shabazz was gentle with some, firm with others on a recent night as he urged them to get off the streets at night, and to stay away from looting. One young man wearing a bandanna around his neck seemed primed for trouble standing near a closed restaurant until Shabazz put a hand on his shoulder and had a quiet talk. Soon, the young man nodded and walked away. The shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a white police officer on Aug. 9 has created a volatile situation in the St. Louis suburb. Officer Darren Wilson is on paid administrative leave pending an investigation. It could be weeks before a decision is made on whether the officer will face charges. In the meantime, protesters gather every night along a few blocks of West Florissant, not far from where Brown died. Most are peaceful, but police have used tear gas and rubber bullets to control the rowdy ones, who have pelted officers with Molotov cocktails and bricks. Gunfire is common at night. It's an odd situation for some of the volunteers, many of whom have spent their lives railing against police brutality. It's not that they're siding with police. But there is a sense that the real message of the protests — that Brown's death deserves justice — is being overshadowed by the looting and unrest. So groups of activists, clergy, even a motorcycle gang, are pitching in, hoping the message will resonate more clearly coming from black men and women who aren't wearing badges. It isn't easy. Shabazz admitted that keeping the peace is often a challenge as he deals with what he called "infiltrators and provocateurs" seeking to cause trouble. "This is extremely tenuous," he said. "I risk my life out there running between that (police) line and all of those men. I don't know what's in those guns they got." Paul Muhammad, 36, of St. Louis, a barrel-chested man in a black T-shirt and camouflage pants, said his group, the Peacekeepers, was serving as a buffer between protesters and police. "Let's go black people!" Muhammad yelled at young people loitering in front of a store. "Off the lot!" Muhammad was among several men wearing "Peacekeepers" T-shirts around Ferguson. At least 200 had volunteered through the group Disciples of Justice. Shabazz said up to 150 men were helping through an affiliation with the New Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, the National Action Network and Black Lawyers for Justice. Akbar Muhammad of the Nation of Islam said he and other older activists are as worried about the protesters as police. "We do not want our young people getting hurt," he said. Many of the volunteers say they're just as put off by the heavy police presence and the use of National Guard as the protesters. They also understand the frustrations of the protesters. Terrance Ivy, 28, of Disciples of Justice, said the unrest "is their way of expressing themselves. It's their voice. We feel like a lot of people say they hear us, but they don't. They don't listen to us. The cops who do things like this aren't facing time (in prison) like we would." Muhammad said, "The injustice has not been corrected yet. But we're taking a stand for our people. Who better to police family than family?"
And this is the other takeaway from this incident. Why any police vehicle does not have a dashcam in this day and age is beyond me. Not only for accountability, but to protect the police officers in the event of frivolous or untrue accusations. Wearable cams like the ones taser makes should also be standard issue. BTW, buy some taser stock now...
I don't disagree with that... I just believe the government is more concerned about "domestic terrorist" than they are foreign elements like al-qaeda. The enemy from within (that they can't racial profile) has always been the most dangerous and do the most damage. 911 was our key of fear that the government used to open that door. Before long they will be telling all of us to turn our guns in because the police are well equipped so they can protect us from al-qaeda and the big bad black people in poor neighborhoods. I would think if a 6'4 290 pound person hit a smaller person that hard to do that kind of damage _ dude would be laid out sleep or at least dizzy. He's walking around like all his senses are intact. But maybe Officer Wilson is just a tough guy...
