Ferguson, Missouri

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.

Because assuming a cop's innocence is not rushing to judgement either... especially not when you start labeling the victim a thug based on a "robbery" that it sounds like may have been something else at this point. The police are rushing to judgement and circling the wagons... there's not a lot of options for the public at that point.

I worries me that a police officer can shoot anyone and just say, "he tried to grab my gun." I find it hard to believe that anyone would reach for an officer's weapon unless it was pointed at them. If the gun is buttoned down it would very difficult to get out of the holster.

The cop has been saying that Brown tried to get his gun from him while he was in the car, correct? If the cop is right handed the holster would have been towards the interior of the car. It would have been very, very difficult to grab at it if it wasn't already out. Hell, even if the holster was on the left side it would be really really difficult to get at the gun through the car window.

I've thought all along that the "went for my gun," defense was pretty much the Southpark, "He's coming right for me," variation. Without video, it's hard to say. Of course, if we had the cops version, then we might understand how it unfolded. But that is a secret. So are the number and placement of shell casings, the presence or lack of gunpowder residue, and the damage the officer suffered to his face. What is not a secret is the video of a robbery the officer knew nothing about and Michael Brown's toxicology report.

It's like nearly every scandal. What does someone in is the cover-up. That's what sparked the riots, and that is what makes people doubt the truth as it does come out.

Just throwing this out there: are we 100% sure that spontaneous gunshot wounds totally not caused by police officers aren't symptoms of an allergic reaction to trace amounts of marijuana?

Jayhawker wrote:

It's like nearly every scandal. What does someone in is the cover-up. That's what sparked the riots, and that is what makes people doubt the truth as it does come out.

That, in my opinion, is why this is such a big deal. Even if the original shooting was 100% justified, the police don't get to make that call. The courts are separate from the police for a reason. And, having lost the trust of the community, you've contaminated the chain of evidence, even if the formal procedures are still in place. This isn't just about the shooting anymore, it's about the policing, and the response to the protests.

The details aren't released because they're incriminating. Look at how the STL shooting a few days ago was handled to see what they do when it's not incriminating.

Jayhawker wrote:

I've thought all along that the "went for my gun," defense was pretty much the Southpark, "He's coming right for me," variation.

My first thought was that it was a lazy defense / comical defense; then it became a defense that they could never prove (or they didn't collect like fingerprints on the gun). Then there was outcry about it - and that surprised them and obviously they didn't know how to react.

Then again there was that deer last year that went for my gun...

Another Southpark claim is "the defendant dropped the marijuana on the ground." People never actually do that; that's how cops justify finding drugs after conducting an illegal search.

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.

If you're a police officer and you believe your life is truly in danger then you shoot them to stop them from coming at you. You aim at center massive because it's your greatest chance to hit the target. Once the assailant stops coming at you, there is no need to keep firing. I'm sure there's a fair amount of adrenaline but crossing the line from self defense to judgment is a problem. When the would be assailant is lying on the ground and you put another three rounds into him that's not self defense, that's finishing him off.

I think that's asking a lot for someone to be that calm and collected to realize when they can stop shooting, when they're shooting because they believe their life is in danger.

Right. If the cop has a orbital blowout fracture to his eye socket, I can see him feeling like he has to just keep shooting because he is injured, feels vulnerable, an his ability to see his impaired. Of course, he did hit Brown six times, at least. And it would be a pretty simple photo to prove injuries the night he suffered them.

Of course, the Chief Tom Jackson said the officer had some swelling on his face and neck in the day after the incident. Suddenly there is a massive injury. But yeah, no reason to distrust the cops at all. Because there is just no way to let the public know that the officer suffered such a horrific injury. no way at all. If only we had invented a device that could capture images, and then let others look at them later.

In contrast to the above discussion, this happened:

Man shot by police at Mission Bay pleads not guilty to gun charge
(San Diego 6, 2014-08-20)

Tamayo got out of his car, but then returned to it and grabbed a loaded 9 mm pistol, Del Toro said.

Tamayo then "pointed his gun recklessly at various people in the park," at a police helicopter overhead and at the nearby officers, prompting Officer Michael Weaver to shoot the suspect in the stomach, the sergeant said.

Tamayo fell to the ground, but his gun remained within reach and he ignored officers' orders, Del Toro said. Officers then used non-lethal rounds on Tamayo and arrested him.

So, this guy aimed his gun at people, including police officers. He was then shot [em]once[/em]. While still potentially able to reach for his weapon, he was then put down with non-lethal force.

You can probably already guess his skin color.

Like in the case with poor Mr. Zimmerman, watch the injuries snowball after the altercation!

Jayhawker wrote:

Right. If the cop has a orbital blowout fracture to his eye socket, I can see him feeling like he has to just keep shooting because he is injured, feels vulnerable, an his ability to see his impaired. Of course, he did hit Brown six times, at least. And it would be a pretty simple photo to prove injuries the night he suffered them.

Of course, the Chief Tom Jackson said the officer had some swelling on his face and neck in the day after the incident. Suddenly there is a massive injury. But yeah, no reason to distrust the cops at all. Because there is just no way to let the public know that the officer suffered such a horrific injury. no way at all. If only we had invented a device that could capture images, and then let others look at them later.

From that same site: BREAKING: Mike Brown Autopsy “Expert” Is NOT A DOCTOR – Has Degree in NON-EXISTENT MEDICAL FIELD

Also a ton of immature anti-Obama stuff. Real trustworthy site.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Right. If the cop has a orbital blowout fracture to his eye socket, I can see him feeling like he has to just keep shooting because he is injured, feels vulnerable, an his ability to see his impaired. Of course, he did hit Brown six times, at least. And it would be a pretty simple photo to prove injuries the night he suffered them.

Of course, the Chief Tom Jackson said the officer had some swelling on his face and neck in the day after the incident. Suddenly there is a massive injury. But yeah, no reason to distrust the cops at all. Because there is just no way to let the public know that the officer suffered such a horrific injury. no way at all. If only we had invented a device that could capture images, and then let others look at them later.

From that same site: BREAKING: Mike Brown Autopsy “Expert” Is NOT A DOCTOR – Has Degree in NON-EXISTENT MEDICAL FIELD

Also a ton of immature anti-Obama stuff. Real trustworthy site.

Yeah, it's totally not. But in this media frenzy, this stuff is being repeated over and over so it becomes legitimate "news." Normally, no one listens to this stuff. But now it becomes a case where, "I read that blah, blah, blah..." and people begin repeating the information like it was actually true.

SixteenBlue wrote:

I think that's asking a lot for someone to be that calm and collected to realize when they can stop shooting, when they're shooting because they believe their life is in danger.

Aren't we supposed to be training our police officers to do just that? Remain calm and in control in stressful and potentially life-threatening situations so that they can respond more effectively than a random citizen might?

I saw that link posted by somebody on Facebook and after some searching found out
1: the guy has no real source (obvious)
2: the image he uses is actually an image from this site http://www.aapos.org/terms/condition... with "UNIV IF IOWA" scribbled out with what seems to be the black spraypaint tool (even though the site is actually linked to so it seems like trying to mislead people who won't actually do any research while covering their own asses)
3: google the author's name and see what comes up in autocomplete

After I told them all of this they removed the share from Facebook. Small victories.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I think that's asking a lot for someone to be that calm and collected to realize when they can stop shooting, when they're shooting because they believe their life is in danger.

Aren't we supposed to be training our police officers to do just that? Remain calm and in control in stressful and potentially life-threatening situations so that they can respond more effectively than a random citizen might?

Sure, but even that has reasonable limits I think. I imagine if a random citizen had to shoot someone for their own safety they'd be rattled for a long time. Expecting a cop to shave an extra couple seconds off time spent shooting in that situation still seems a lot to ask.

Plus I think all of this is why shoot to incapacitate doesn't make sense. Once they shoot, they're shooting to kill.

Nearly beaten unconscious now?! Good lord.

SixteenBlue wrote:

From that same site: BREAKING: Mike Brown Autopsy “Expert” Is NOT A DOCTOR – Has Degree in NON-EXISTENT MEDICAL FIELD

Also a ton of immature anti-Obama stuff. Real trustworthy site.

Also interesting that the banner image at the top of that site only features a bunch of people with light-colored skin.

Brown started to walk away according to the account, prompting Wilson to draw his gun and order him to freeze. Brown, the source said, raised his hands in the air, and turned around saying, "What, you're going to shoot me?"

Weird no other witnesses say that.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Nearly beaten unconscious now?! Good lord.

Good lord. Give them another week and it'll be "beaten half to death".

Just to be clear:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20...

Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.

Then The Blaze link to this story:

Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was beaten nearly unconscious and suffered an orbital fracture before he fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown, according to a new bombshell report.

Fox News, citing a “source close to the department’s top brass,” reports that Wilson was taken to the hospital after he was “beaten very severely.” The new report adds additional credibility to a recent report by the Gateway Pundit, which first cited a source who also said Wilson’s eye socket was fractured prior to the shooting.

Jayhawker wrote:

Just to be clear:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20...

Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.

Then The Blaze link to this story:

Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was beaten nearly unconscious and suffered an orbital fracture before he fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown, according to a new bombshell report.

Fox News, citing a “source close to the department’s top brass,” reports that Wilson was taken to the hospital after he was “beaten very severely.” The new report adds additional credibility to a recent report by the Gateway Pundit, which first cited a source who also said Wilson’s eye socket was fractured prior to the shooting.

With Fox News and the Blaze reporting this, it now becomes fodder for every conservative looking for an excuse to let the op off the hook.

If you're going to make this stuff up, why add extra "facts" that are disproven by every other account? Why not just tweak the one detail you want to fabricate?

I wonder what will happen if it turns out that the cop involved didn't suffer any significant injuries at all?

Jayhawker wrote:

With Fox News and the Blaze reporting this, it now becomes fodder for every conservative looking for an excuse to let the op off the hook.

That's depressing. So a master-race-type political blogger "reports" something, and then Fox and Glenn Beck start shouting it as gospel truth (yes, that metaphor was very intentionally chosen), and it's going to be treated as legitimate information by everyone looking to demonize black people and canonize the white cop.

This shouldn't surprise me, it happens all the time. But yet it still surprises me that it's so predictable, transparent, and yet effective.

Farscry wrote:

This shouldn't surprise me, it happens all the time. But yet it still surprises me that it's so predictable, transparent, and yet effective. :(

I'm having a hard time with this. A GWJer saying their coworker heard he was on PCP really messed me up.

SixteenBlue wrote:

If you're going to make this stuff up, why add extra "facts" that are disproven by every other account? Why not just tweak the one detail you want to fabricate?

Are you familiar with the Big Lie?