Ferguson, Missouri

BadKen wrote:

A glimmer of hope?

Police officer suspended for pointing rifle at protesters, threatening them

A video documenting the encounter (warning: graphic language) that made the rounds Wednesday showed the officer — who was pointing his rifle in the direction of the camera — telling protesters, “I will [expletive] kill you.” When asked for his name, the officer responded with, “Go [expletive] yourself.”

This guy did this to so many people he got his own hashtag: #OfficerGof*ckYourself

Unlike Colonel RunAway, I suspect that the neighborhood children will only call this man Officer Gof*ckYourself once.

The St. Louis police have released a cell phone video of the entirety of the recent (non-Michael Brown) officer-involved shooting.

I'm not linking it, and at this point I have no intention of watching it.

In Ferguson, Family Takes Turns Guarding Front Door

This morning we're hearing about people in Ferguson, Missouri, are dealing with the nightly clashes between protesters and police. When tensions on the street escalated on Sunday night, St. Louis public radio reporters Stephanie Lecci and Durrie Bouscaren hid out in one family's house and learned how that family is coping. Here's Durrie Bouscaren.

BOUSCAREN: We met the Moore family in the middle of the night, after running from tear gas and gunfire during Sunday night's clash between police and protesters. With nowhere to go, we knocked on the door of a house with the lights still on. Irma Moore let us in. Moore's five children were snuggled into blankets on the living-room couch, watching the local news station broadcasting the violence just a block away.

That's at the gas station, right? This is at the gas station?

IRMA MOORE: Now I just want it all to end because this is day nine of being up all night and, you know, somebody on watch, whether it be my son, my husband, something.

BOUSCAREN: Moore is an assistant principal at the Dewey International Studies School in St. Louis. She moved to the neighborhood in 2007 because it was quiet. It's down the street from a police station and walking distance to the local high school. Most of the Moore's neighbors are elderly. She says many of them left earlier in the week, checking into hotels to wait out the violence. The Moore's stayed, worried their home would be broken into. But the family is paying a price for that decision.

MOORE: And they, you know, sprayed all of that tear gas up there by Save-A-Lot. You could just (groans) woke up with your face itching. Every time they spray something, we all are like turn the air off because you can - it's like our house gets filled with not necessarily smoke, but you know how, like, you have a gas leak somewhere? It comes right through.

BOUSCAREN: Moore's youngest child is three. Her oldest is 16. Ten-year-old Breadora says it's been a sad week.

DURRIE BREADORA: I can't go to sleep. I just hear shots and stuff. I can't go to, like, soccer practice and I can't go outside and play and go to bed at night.

BOUSCAREN: Moore says the shooting of Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer resonated with her.

MOORE: You know, the very person or individual that should be protecting him took his life. I think back about my own son.

BOUSCAREN: That's 15-year-old Marcus, who's sitting in the corner.

MOORE: You know, he's been arrested by Ferguson since we've lived here, for skateboarding with his friends on this lot back before that little chicken place was there. They put him in handcuffs, threw him in the back of the car. And my son is an honor roll student who's never been in trouble at school ever.

BOUSCAREN: But tonight, Marcus sits with a baseball bat by his side. He and his father take turns staying awake through the night, watching the front door. He says he's given thought to why some protesters have turned to violence and looting.

MARCUS: I understand that they're trying to make it for a cause, but it really isn't. It's just, like, scattered ignorance. All our places are ruined because they've been rioting and everything. There's innocent people out there that they're firing at.

BOUSCAREN: With that, Marcus turns his attention back to the television, which shows a man fall to the ground, apparently shot by a rubber bullet - less than a mile away.

MARCUS: That's crazy. Just, why?

BOUSCAREN: After things quieted down, Moore's husband drove me back to our cars so we could get home safely. But for many who live here, daily life won't be safe for quite some time. For NPR News, I'm Durrie Bouscaren in Ferguson.

Yonder wrote:

If I had artistic ability I'd make a political cartoon.

A handful of white people: "We have three controls, in this order: Ballot Box, Jury Box, and Ammo Box."
Black man: "What about me?"
White people "Get in the box!" (Pointing off panel).
Last panel is the black man in solitary confinement.

If you wanted even more punch the last panel could be a casket.

Or you could have him hand him a tissue box

Gremlin wrote:

The St. Louis police have released a cell phone video of the entirety of the recent (non-Michael Brown) officer-involved shooting.

I'm not linking it, and at this point I have no intention of watching it.

Supposedly it doesn't quite match up with the officers' stories.

VICE posted a dispatch video in which they went to the scene of the second shooting in St. Louis. They talked to some people who claim to have witnessed it, as well as a police captain and the store owner, who showed off the frankly insane firearms he's keeping to supposedly defend his store. It's just them talking to people so you'll hear different versions of the story of course.

This is the first full year I have lived in the South proper (yeah, there are places in Maryland that are more "South" than Raleigh, but bear with me). And I am struck by three things that I notice when discussing this Ferguson thing.

One is that some whites seem to be unashamed of overtly racist opinions and few folks actually call them out on it.

Another and related is that even professionally accomplished African Americans I work with seem really apprehensive to express even completely understandable political positions. I think the most I have heard anyone of color state is that he worries that his kids will receive similar treatment.

Lastly, and constituting some reason for optimism, I have seen many more interracial marriages than I would have expected considering attitudes I have witnessed.

Gremlin wrote:

The St. Louis police have released a cell phone video of the entirety of the recent (non-Michael Brown) officer-involved shooting.

I'm not linking it, and at this point I have no intention of watching it.

I find it absolutely stunning that the police would feel that firing a dozen rounds at an individual, three while he's on the ground, is a justifiable use of force.

Bear wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

The St. Louis police have released a cell phone video of the entirety of the recent (non-Michael Brown) officer-involved shooting.

I'm not linking it, and at this point I have no intention of watching it.

I find it absolutely stunning that the police would feel that firing a dozen rounds at an individual, three while he's on the ground, is a justifiable use of force.

We've discussed this... was it in this thread? Once you have made the decision to discharge your firearm, you are shooting to kill. When you are shooting to kill, you make damn sure the target is dead.

BadKen wrote:
Bear wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

The St. Louis police have released a cell phone video of the entirety of the recent (non-Michael Brown) officer-involved shooting.

I'm not linking it, and at this point I have no intention of watching it.

I find it absolutely stunning that the police would feel that firing a dozen rounds at an individual, three while he's on the ground, is a justifiable use of force.

We've discussed this... was it in this thread? Once you have made the decision to discharge your firearm, you are shooting to kill. When you are shooting to kill, you make damn sure the target is dead.

I think there's a bit of a difference between shooting someone with the understanding that it will probably kill them, and going for kill confirmation after they're down.

I just wonder why they went for guns first, instead of tazers. Especially considering the climate in the area, you'd think FPD would be treading (more) lightly.

BadKen wrote:
Bear wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

The St. Louis police have released a cell phone video of the entirety of the recent (non-Michael Brown) officer-involved shooting.

I'm not linking it, and at this point I have no intention of watching it.

I find it absolutely stunning that the police would feel that firing a dozen rounds at an individual, three while he's on the ground, is a justifiable use of force.

We've discussed this... was it in this thread? Once you have made the decision to discharge your firearm, you are shooting to kill. When you are shooting to kill, you make damn sure the target is dead.

Because hes a zombie?

I don't get this 'shooting to kill' mentality. Shouldn't it be shoot until the situation isn't a danger to the cop anymore?

Maybe I'm naive but if you shoot someone coming towards you and they drop don't they usually not get up?

Shouldn't trained cops be able to drop a target approaching them with a knife with pretty much 1 shot?

Its my same reaction in the other thread. Going into every situation pretty much Def Con 1 sounds like a horrible way to police.

Danger? START SHOOTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The more I read about Ferguson, the more I think that Brown's shooting is something of a red herring, where the real issue is the relationship between the police and the community they were supposed to be protecting. I honestly don't know how that town gets back to normal. It kind of sounds like they need to blow up the whole police department and start over.

kazooka wrote:

The more I read about Ferguson, the more I think that Brown's shooting is something of a red herring, where the real issue is the relationship between the police and the community they were supposed to be protecting.

Well quite. Read over the initial report of the Brown shooting and if you didn't know the shooter was a cop it sounds exactly like a drive-by gang shooting.

Mostly because that's what it was.

kazooka wrote:

The more I read about Ferguson, the more I think that Brown's shooting is something of a red herring, where the real issue is the relationship between the police and the community they were supposed to be protecting. I honestly don't know how that town gets back to normal. It kind of sounds like they need to blow up the whole police department and start over.

exactly this.

jowner wrote:
BadKen wrote:
Bear wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

The St. Louis police have released a cell phone video of the entirety of the recent (non-Michael Brown) officer-involved shooting.

I'm not linking it, and at this point I have no intention of watching it.

I find it absolutely stunning that the police would feel that firing a dozen rounds at an individual, three while he's on the ground, is a justifiable use of force.

We've discussed this... was it in this thread? Once you have made the decision to discharge your firearm, you are shooting to kill. When you are shooting to kill, you make damn sure the target is dead.

Because hes a zombie?

I don't get this 'shooting to kill' mentality. Shouldn't it be shoot until the situation isn't a danger to the cop anymore?

Maybe I'm naive but if you shoot someone coming towards you and they drop don't they usually not get up?

Shouldn't trained cops be able to drop a target approaching them with a knife with pretty much 1 shot?

Its my same reaction in the other thread. Going into every situation pretty much Def Con 1 sounds like a horrible way to police.

Danger? START SHOOTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have absolutely no problems with "Shoot to kill", it's what the gun is for. Handguns are incredibly inaccurate in any combat situation; I recall poking around on what I would not-charitably refer to as "gun nut sites", and multiple people saying they felt the effective combat range of a handgun is something like 20-25 yards at most. It has a short barrel, requires you to hold an arm very steady, and, in the adrenaline rush of combat, that's hard to do. Now, in a target situation, sure, much further, but actually hitting something with a handgun who is either (A) trying not to be hit or (B) trying not to be hit and trying to shoot you is a very difficult proposition. If you're firing a handgun at somebody, you're not wasting your shots on trying to hit a flailing limb; you're going to aim for the center of mass until they're down. That's what handguns are for. Go back to the shooting of Amadou Diallo in NYC years back, where the police fired 41 shots at him, and IIRC hit on about a quarter of those. I think you have to take it as a given that a handgun is in itself a close-quarters self-defense weapon that's inherently very inaccurate, so multiple shots until somebody drops is what you should expect.

Now, clearly, there's another question here, and that's why they went for the gun in the first place. Sure, pepper spray and tasers are there, but there's been a lot of criticism of police departments for taking easily-defusable situations and whipping out tasers immediately in recent years. "Non-violent" methods of taking somebody down are easier than talking, you know? So, I wouldn't be surprised if police are actually a bit reticent about using tasers in some situations, plus if this guy was running at them with a knife screaming "KILL ME!" (I have no intention of watching the video to verify), there's not a lot of time to react.

tl;dr I don't see this situation as vaguely worthy of the same scrutiny as the Michael Brown situation, which, to this point, still looks like a daylight execution. A visibly erratic and/or crazy person walking back and forth with a knife is a potential threat to any number of people and, while I would prefer if the situation were defused, I can at least *understand* the use of deadly force in that situation. It's nothing like the Michael Brown situation.

Police training is supposed to be shooting to incapacitate. It just so happens that the best method for this is to shoot center mass. However when the target goes down, they are supposed to stop shooting. Cops are not allowed, for instance, to saunter over to a downed suspect and deliver a coup de grâce with a bullet to the head, even if they had been "shooting to kill" seconds earlier.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Police training is supposed to be shooting to incapacitate. It just so happens that the best method for this is to shoot center mass. However when the target goes down, they are supposed to stop shooting. Cops are not allowed, for instance, to saunter over to a downed suspect and deliver a coup de grâce with a bullet to the head, even if they had been "shooting to kill" seconds earlier.

Granted, and, like I said, I haven't watched the video of the latest shooting, and haven't followed it much. Execution on the ground is clearly different; was just responding to the "why don't they shoot to wound" post earlier. I'm going to suggest if you're aiming for the center of mass, you are not in any way, shape, or form shooting to wound. You're trying to kill somebody, and any attempt to say there's an attempt to incapacitate by shooting somebody in the chest is lip service at best.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Police training is supposed to be shooting to incapacitate. It just so happens that the best method for this is to shoot center mass. However when the target goes down, they are supposed to stop shooting. Cops are not allowed, for instance, to saunter over to a downed suspect and deliver a coup de grâce with a bullet to the head, even if they had been "shooting to kill" seconds earlier.

Granted, and, like I said, I haven't watched the video of the latest shooting, and haven't followed it much. Execution on the ground is clearly different; was just responding to the "why don't they shoot to wound" post earlier. I'm going to suggest if you're aiming for the center of mass, you are not in any way, shape, or form shooting to wound. You're trying to kill somebody, and any attempt to say there's an attempt to incapacitate by shooting somebody in the chest is lip service at best.

Right but this doesn't really explain how in both situations the absurd amount of shots fired.

I by no means think Canadian police are that much better as they have had their fair share of shooting incidents but locally a cop was in the same situation with a knife wielding suicidal maniac.

Two shots were fired. 1 hit the target in the chest 1 in the arm. He went down the end.

I understand once you start firing your not trying to get both knee caps, shoot the knife out of his hand etc movie style. You aim for the center of the targets body which also happens to be a kill-zone.

Thing is I might be holding trained professionals to a higher standard I guess but if a knife wielding maniac is approaching you who has already asked you to kill him I'm not envisioning a complicated ninja/pirate scenario.

I guess my argument is in both situations (one horribly not justified one arguably justified) the police went very quickly into using lethal force and once they did it was IMO extremely excessive.

Using the same argument that hand guns are not entirely accurate I really don't want police popping off 7+ shots in public areas. I think its part of very slippery mentality that this kind of force is acceptable.

Paleocon wrote:
kazooka wrote:

The more I read about Ferguson, the more I think that Brown's shooting is something of a red herring, where the real issue is the relationship between the police and the community they were supposed to be protecting. I honestly don't know how that town gets back to normal. It kind of sounds like they need to blow up the whole police department and start over.

exactly this.

Yeah, this is basically what I've been saying the last few days. Brown's shooting was the catalyst that tipped things far enough that the hostility between the community and police spilled over the levee and now the only question is whether the water's going to go back down or if the levee is going to fully break down.

I guess I shouldn't be, but I've been surprised by the open racism I've seen some acquaintances on Facebook posting. There are two stories I've seen posted several times. One is about how years ago there was an instance of a black police officer shooting an unarmed white person and there were no riots and people just went to work like normal. That story is usually prefaced by a personal post that's smug and has something to do with the current rioters being either ignorant, uncivilized, or just out to steal and destroy and that it's not actually about the shooting. The other was a video I saw posted several times of a black man voicing his support for the police in this situation. I generally viewed that as people posting that to justify their own racist statements about the rioters. Kind of a "See? It's okay if I talk bad about them because even one of THEM is talking bad about them."

It's just really disheartening to see people that have so little information about what's going on here to immediately form these strong opinions that they want to wave in front of others.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I have absolutely no problems with "Shoot to kill", it's what the gun is for. Handguns are incredibly inaccurate in any combat situation; I recall poking around on what I would not-charitably refer to as "gun nut sites", and multiple people saying they felt the effective combat range of a handgun is something like 20-25 yards at most. It has a short barrel, requires you to hold an arm very steady, and, in the adrenaline rush of combat, that's hard to do. Now, in a target situation, sure, much further, but actually hitting something with a handgun who is either (A) trying not to be hit or (B) trying not to be hit and trying to shoot you is a very difficult proposition. If you're firing a handgun at somebody, you're not wasting your shots on trying to hit a flailing limb; you're going to aim for the center of mass until they're down. That's what handguns are for. Go back to the shooting of Amadou Diallo in NYC years back, where the police fired 41 shots at him, and IIRC hit on about a quarter of those. I think you have to take it as a given that a handgun is in itself a close-quarters self-defense weapon that's inherently very inaccurate, so multiple shots until somebody drops is what you should expect.

Without veering too far off topic (or being too insensitive), I find it interesting that most games have the pistol as being the most accurate weapon. I realize this is because it's almost always underpowered compared to other weapons and they need something to balance that.

garion333 wrote:

Without veering too far off topic (or being too insensitive), I find it interesting that most games have the pistol as being the most accurate weapon. I realize this is because it's almost always underpowered compared to other weapons and they need something to balance that.

This was apparently done mostly by accident in Halo. Fairly late in the process their testing was showing that people thought that the early game was way too hard. The early game when you frequently only have a pistol. They "fixed" this by making the pistol much more powerful so that those sections were easier.

People mostly stopped using the pistol as soon as they could, under the assumption any replacement weapons were better, so the fact that they had completely wrecked multiplayer balance slipped by them until it was too late to change.

(I know that this trope is in way more games than just the first Halo, but ever since it came out that game has epitomized the over-powered pistol to me).

kazooka wrote:

The more I read about Ferguson, the more I think that Brown's shooting is something of a red herring, where the real issue is the relationship between the police and the community they were supposed to be protecting. I honestly don't know how that town gets back to normal. It kind of sounds like they need to blow up the whole police department and start over.

The massive amount of media attention also means that it is detrimental to police overall. There are several law enforcement sites that are being used for support groups trying to show support for Ferguston; the SWOT lobby (who knew??) has been increasing the political pressure in Washington. I have also seen comments along from conservatives (non-libertarian) saying that (paraphrase) "law enforcement needs to do their job and if you are not law enforcement you need to butt out."

This is such a narrow view and disturbing: the facts still remain: the victim was shot several times, the assailant knew the victim was unarmed and had his hands up, the assailant started the fight for no known purpose: at least two witnesses have collaborated this story. The only view from the assailant's side that disputes this story was a non-witness who called into a radio show. To anyone reasonable this is more than enough to arrest the assailant. In this case though the assailant is a white cop and the victim a black teenager. Most people see this; the other are trying to obfuscate their true beliefs by saying that law enforcement needs to do their jobs.

This is why the police should have released relevant information ASAP; but now they have waited so long and released irrelevant information to try and blame the victim that most everyone sees a cover-up.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Police training is supposed to be shooting to incapacitate. It just so happens that the best method for this is to shoot center mass. However when the target goes down, they are supposed to stop shooting. Cops are not allowed, for instance, to saunter over to a downed suspect and deliver a coup de grâce with a bullet to the head, even if they had been "shooting to kill" seconds earlier.

Granted, and, like I said, I haven't watched the video of the latest shooting, and haven't followed it much. Execution on the ground is clearly different; was just responding to the "why don't they shoot to wound" post earlier. I'm going to suggest if you're aiming for the center of mass, you are not in any way, shape, or form shooting to wound. You're trying to kill somebody, and any attempt to say there's an attempt to incapacitate by shooting somebody in the chest is lip service at best.

I know it seems like a pedantic/semantic nitpick, but the goal in a lethal-force situation should always be to incapacitate. It just so happens that death is the best and ultimate method of incapacitation.

The difference between shooting to incapacitate and shooting to kill is that in the former, you're supposed to stop shooting when the threat goes down.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Police training is supposed to be shooting to incapacitate. It just so happens that the best method for this is to shoot center mass. However when the target goes down, they are supposed to stop shooting. Cops are not allowed, for instance, to saunter over to a downed suspect and deliver a coup de grâce with a bullet to the head, even if they had been "shooting to kill" seconds earlier.

Granted, and, like I said, I haven't watched the video of the latest shooting, and haven't followed it much. Execution on the ground is clearly different; was just responding to the "why don't they shoot to wound" post earlier. I'm going to suggest if you're aiming for the center of mass, you are not in any way, shape, or form shooting to wound. You're trying to kill somebody, and any attempt to say there's an attempt to incapacitate by shooting somebody in the chest is lip service at best.

I know it seems like a pedantic/semantic nitpick, but the goal in a lethal-force situation should always be to incapacitate. It just so happens that death is the best and ultimate method of incapacitation.

The difference between shooting to incapacitate and shooting to kill is that in the former, you're supposed to stop shooting when the threat goes down.

That's a fair distinction. I don't mean to imply that police officers should purposeful continue shooting when the threat is passed, however, some lag time is unfortunately to be expected. It's entirely possible that multiple shots will be necessary to incapacitate, and shooting once, re-evaluating, shooting again, re-evaluating, etcetera isn't going to work. (Or shouldn't work anyways. If you have the amount of time needed to pause and carefully consider after every shot then that means you started shooting too soon. You should only be firing that first shot in a super time critical emergency).

If that first burst of fire continues for several seconds after the target stops or falls, that's not acceptable. If there is a pause in shooting that gives you time to evaluate, and then you choose to continue shooting someone that's not a threat anymore, that's unacceptable.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Now, clearly, there's another question here, and that's why they went for the gun in the first place. Sure, pepper spray and tasers are there, but there's been a lot of criticism of police departments for taking easily-defusable situations and whipping out tasers immediately in recent years. "Non-violent" methods of taking somebody down are easier than talking, you know? So, I wouldn't be surprised if police are actually a bit reticent about using tasers in some situations, plus if this guy was running at them with a knife screaming "KILL ME!" (I have no intention of watching the video to verify), there's not a lot of time to react.

If the police are worried about criticism for using tasers and pepper spray, why in the world would anyone assume they would get LESS criticism for using handguns??

kazooka wrote:

The more I read about Ferguson, the more I think that Brown's shooting is something of a red herring, where the real issue is the relationship between the police and the community they were supposed to be protecting. I honestly don't know how that town gets back to normal. It kind of sounds like they need to blow up the whole police department and start over.

Well, it's about repeated mistreatment of black folks over history, not just in Ferguson but everywhere. Watts, Chicago, Rodney King, Amadou Diallo, etc. These are just the "big" incidents in a line of offenses that happen on a daily basis all across the country.

What is grating me right now are the people that continually say that the protesters and media are rushing to judgement and not waiting for all the facts. FFS, that the f*cking issue. The facts are being witheld when they could be released. But TPTB have manipulated and played games with the facts to the point that no one will believe them when they come out.

Right now there is a rumor that the cop has a broken eye socket. Let's say that is true. If you release the cops name and a photo of the damage, suddenly you would find more understanding.

Right now, people will think that the cop had someone punch him after the fact, because the lack of openness drives conspiracy theories. Look at all the conjecture about the Michael Brown video.

It's not that hard to understand if you aren't just looking for confirmation of your prejudice.