It was a factor in what happened---you're not one for subtleties though are you? Here goes it: Michael Brown did something really stupid. Wilson killed somebody. Policy can and should do a better job of addressing the latter. If you really believe America is a nation of laws, then you believe that enforcement agents should be placed in the best position possible to serve that justice. If you believe in one cause and scoring personal victory points instead of looking at reasons, policy, and why a community may be angry at what is happening, well, don't expect to participate in anymore than a smothering of the problems at hand (which is what you seem inclined to do). The problems will still smoulder.
Anyone remember this story from this summer? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sean-groubert-south-carolina-police-shooting Now, these situations are very different, and even if you don't believe Wilson's fairly ridiculous story, Michael Brown wasn't a completely innocent bystander here. So I'm not trying to create parallels on the specifics of the cases. But if that victim had been killed, and there had been no camera, what are the odds that the story reported would be similar? A black man was being aggressive and an officer shot him in self-defense. Does it seem odd to anyone that cops are almost universally in the right when there happens to be no video, and it's a lot more of a mixed bag when there is video?
Point 1: Check. Point 2: Check. Point 3: And what alternative, pray tell, would you propose to peacefully resolve a situation where a rather large and aggressive man is attacking you while seated in a vehicle, trying to take your firearm and presumably kill you with it? Oh, that's right, the nonexistent Taser, lol. Are you even aware that Tasers have a minimum effective distance? Technically at point blank range - while grappling with an opponent - they *might* discharge correctly and *might* incapacitate an assailant, but their effectiveness is greatly reduced at point blank range. A minimum of 3 feet distance is required for most models to attain effectiveness that can consistently incapacitate an assailant. This is why you don't see cops going for their Tasers when someone is already on them. There are many, many other aspects of use of force and this case in particular that you quite obviously have no grasp of, but this is just one salient fact to take into consideration when asking "Why didn't he just use a Taser?" It would make for a more productive discussion if you actually knew some of these things.
Well I dont know all the facts either, I think they decided not to indict them so we'll leave it at that. However I do agree with @northside a little bit about the "shoot until the threat is eliminated thing". If a police-officer is attacked or he/she feels their life is danger, they have a right to shoot, n I'm totally fine with that. But it seems like more than often that every time a cop has a right to shoot legally someone ends up dead. Is death the only thing to stop the threat?
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370734-witness-40-journal-entry.html lmao witness 40's journal entry... what the f am I reading "Well I’m gonna take my random drive to Florissant. Need to understand the Black race better so I stop calling Blacks Ni**ers and start calling them People. Like dad always said you cant fear or hate an entire race cause of what one man did 40 yrs ago..."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...-need-more-nonlethal-alternatives-to-firearms All of these technologies exist but await application. The irony is that police agencies militarize excessively---except for adopting military technology that could save lives. I may not have much experience with use of force, but I have a lot of experience with "when there's a will, there's a way". And in this case, it appears there is the latter, but not the former.
It's not odd. We put too much power and trust in the police. It's hilarious how blind folks are to why that is a problem.
Here's the way "shoot to end the threat" works. You keep shooting until 1) the threat is on the ground and no longer advancing, 2) the threat ceases his/her threatening behavior and displays their empty hands for the shooter to see. Once the target stops doing whatever he/she is doing and puts empty hands where the shooter can see them the shooter is supposed to stop shooting. Once the target is on the ground and not moving/advancing/attacking any more then the shooter stops shooting. If at any point the target resumes his/her threatening behaviors then the shooter shoots again. If this means the shooter takes two shots (no one is ever trained to take one shot at a time - things happen too quickly and it is impossible to assess each shot individually) and the target is hit center mass, which is where you always aim, whether the target dies or not is irrelevant. If it means the shooter has to empty a mag into someone to stop them from attacking then that's what happens. You shoot until you are certain that the target is no longer a threat. It's a simple concept, and the alternative only works in movies, not in real life. Northside Storm has zero expertise in this field, and only knows what he has seen in movies and in his own head. It doesn't match reality.
Yeah that's a pretty terrible situation, I heard that he raised the gun so they shot, they couldn't have known it was fake. It's a tragedy, but that's why kids need to be taught how to act around police and how to handle guns, even fake guns. I don't know what would fix that other than parents keeping realistic looking guns out of their kids hands and proper training of kids how to handle them and proper etiquette. As to him being 12, I've seen soldiers die at the hands of 12 year olds, so it's not like they can't be a threat. Absolutely, I do. That said, I'm not sure it would have helped in this instance.
Sunil Dutta, a 17-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, disagrees with you on the reality you're espousing.
LOL, those technologies exist, and the high tech gadgets you mentioned are to my knowledge still in the experimental stages, never having been used operationally. You are sitting here bitc%ing about militarization - while quoting microwaves and lasers - which happen to be mounted on HMMWVs in their current form - as the answer? Seriously? Give. Me. A. Break. So, when a HMMWV rolls up to a crowd of rioters and aims its microwave crowd dispersal cannon at the rioters, beaming intense heat waves that simulate extremely painful burning a millimeter under the skin, and people come away with 3rd degree burns... We absolutely will NOT see you pop in a thread about it complaining about militarization of the cops? Will you promise? Seriously, I am laughing here. Truly LMAO. Again, you know ABSOLUTELY not of what you speak. But it is entertaining to watch.
Nope, I didn't say that. I said the majority in this country just don't care what happens to black people... That doesn't necessarily make them racist. We don't care about the old, the poor, don't care about education, or even veteran soldiers. Black people aren't the only minority group that may receive unfair treatment in this country. It's more of an economic difference than cultural difference IMO... And all of this protesting if anything will just lead to stricter gun laws. Which in the end is something you will probably not agree with at all and something the government ultimately wants.
Which really didn't make sense, if you just got done robbing a store, why get into it with cops? Had he just done what the guy said, maybe the cop doesn't have a second thought about him and doesn't link him with the robbery. If the cop doesn't link him with the robbery then bootleg Deebo is alive and free to rob more stores and everyone is happy.
