In their current form An important distinction. Of course you'd gloss over--- When there are higher standards for those non-lethal devices commensurate with how lethal devices should be used, research and policy devoted to minimizing the loss of life including research into new technologies, and new variants of existing technologies, but also a new approach to policing that is data-driven, and inclined to spare life rather than to take it well--- Then of course, an end to the prison state, an end to an unjust War on Drugs---then I suppose I will not "pop" into threads. With regards to militarization, I would define my interpretation as the stockpile of conventional arms and techniques and the over-aggressive nature of policing that has characterized the post-9/11 period. I have no problem building on military technology that aims to save lives by creating lower levels of force---so long as the laws attached to them ensure they are held to the same standards officers holding onto firearms currently don't abide by, and that lower potential for damage doesn't become a lower threshold for abuse (a possibility the ACLU has masterfully pointed out with regards to non-lethal policing, and drone warfare). A tool can be abused. I'm against stockpiling too many tools of the wrong kind, and having the wrong standards attached to them. I'm for having the right tools, with the right rules.
Less than lethal weapons are sometimes lethal and not nearly as effective as a gun. That gun stopped a huge guy cold. Mace you have to hit the eyes, taser, you have one shot.
Oh, and BTW - I just want to correct something here. There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon. They are correctly termed "less-than-lethal" (LTL) weapons. Rubber bullets and bean bag rounds can and do kill (seen that one myself). Tasers can and do kill. Pepper spray can and does kill. Batons can and do kill. While these options and others are far less likely to kill than a traditional firearm, they are all dangerous and not remotely risk-free devices. They all require sacrifices on the part of the user as well - usually a sacrifice to the user's safety. Generally speaking, it is far safer to use lethal force against an opponent than to try to use a LTL option - especially where the user is alone or has an assailant in close proximity and advancing. Also, at any point in any violent encounter, it can turn into a lethal force situation. Strangling someone is a lethal force maneuver. Nearly any object used correctly can turn into a lethal force object. Going for someone's firearm definitely makes it a lethal force situation. In order to understand why these things happen the way they do you need to understand these things.
Exactly... In many cases police officers aren't being held to a higher standard than the common criminal on the street as far as following proper procedure and protocol. And the D.A.'s office has the power to manipulate the justice system how they see fit. They can kill you or railroad you into jail even if you're innocent. And this is going on with people of all colors.
There was pot in his system. Either pot messed with his judgement or he was full blown ghetto. Usually you are low key after you rob a store.
And again - going back to my original point to you - you utterly fail to understand that LTLs are not appropriate in every situation, in fact in a good many of them any attempt to use LTLs would be a liability. The idea that you can remove the lethal option from police forces - at any point in the near future, especially in this country - is absolutely, positively ludicrous. It's such a dumb and dangerous idea that it doesn't warrant serious consideration. Police forces and militaries around the world are VERY interested in LTL developments, and they would FAR prefer using such tools where possible and appropriate, but the idea that they can replace the lethal option wholesale is just dumb. It simply doesn't work that way, and it never will.
Yeah but weed shouldn't have had that reaction, people are generally a lot more chill when they are high. I think it was just that he was the neighborhood Deebo who thought he was invincible because he was big enough to bully people in most cases. Obviously that's speculation on my part, but it's based on his actions in the store pushing around that clerk. Also, he just stole the Swishers, he didn't have time to smoke.
The fact that there was no optionality here bothers me, and it should bother everybody. It should bother you (they would FAR prefer using such tools, but don't have them). That's only one small edge of the problems prevalent. Unfortunate that you live in a world where things stay the way the way they always have.
Sacrifices should be made when it comes to the overwhelming power of the state and its actors versus the citizenry. That's essentially what America is based on---the binding of the state from excessive force. That you cannot see beyond this case to see why accepting excessive force as a norm is troubling, to the point where state actors can kill---well, that's on you. That's what I "popped" in to argue.
Even if he had the option of using a taser, it wouldn't have been appropriate in this case because there were 2 of them. Pepper spray was something he had that could have been effective if he wasn't in his car, had he used it he'd have blinded himself as well as only one of them. The answer isn't to give cops more options to deal with people who attack them, it's to get the people to stop attacking. In this instance, you should be blaming the criminal, not the cop. If Micheal Brown's mom hadn't failed as a parent, he'd still be alive.
For the umpteenth time... There was no "optionality" here because Brown assaulted him while he was seated in his vehicle. At that point, unless Brown ceases, there really is only the lethal option - especially when he went for the officer's gun. You can't tase someone point blank like that when they are going for your gun. As I posted earlier it likely won't work anyway, and the higher priority is to make sure he doesn't knock you out and/or take your gun. When someone goes for your gun you really are left with no other option but to shoot them. Imagining anything else is fantasy.
LOL. Translation: We must sacrifice officer safety in order to ensure a Canadian's view of American justice. LOLOLOLOL Hey, that would be a great recruiting poster for law enforcement agencies
I have a simple question. What was the distance from the officer to the suspect at the time of the final shots that killed him? The main point should be whether or not the officer was truly in danger. The altercation in the car has nothing to do with what happened at some distance away from the car. Had he been shot and killed at point blank range inside or very near the vehicle there would be no uproar over this. And sorry if this has been asked/answered already. I'm not going to go through every page of this massive thread.
That's not what I heard, if that ends up being the case then I hope he gets off. The story I heard is that they got in an argument and he pulled out his baton and hit him for it. If that story is true, then it's just a case of police using excessive force, if he was charged at or whatever, then it's a case of self defense.
It's a point of contention but the cop's story is somewhere around 8-10 feet having run at him from about 30 feet.
And just to address this one... At NO POINT have I made a case for acceptability of the use of excessive force by police. Nowhere. You will not find any quote of mine remotely spouting that. I ABSOLUTELY want any case of excessive force by police to be pursued. I want cops who do it to lose not only their jobs but their freedom, just as any other thug would. The problem we have here is that you are incapable of judging what excessive force actually is. Killing some a$$hole who is pummeling you and trying to take your gun is NOT excessive force - that is appropriate force in that situation. You want the cops disarmed. I want them armed and following the rules. That's the real difference.
...well then. Also, if Micheal Brown was stopped non-lethally while he was charging with his hands up (when he was actually felled by 6 bullets). Or if he had been born in a state that didn't have the highest imprisonment rate in recorded history, or somewhere where petty crime deserves death while grand larcony deserves political access---if you think of Brown as a product of his family, I don't see why I can't see him as a product of greater tragedies.
I believe around 10 feet or so when the final shots occurred. Think of it this way: how long does it take the average person to sprint 30 feet. Think about it. 30 feet is not far at all, and it takes maybe 2-3 seconds. To make that 10 foot run takes less than a second. In situations like these everyone is ridiculously stressed and things happen VERY quickly. If tyou don't shoot fast you are likely to wind up dead.
