Ferguson conflict - What is the problem, and how to solve it?

[Moontanman]

Shocking video Moon.

 

I read a few articles on a range of sites after viewing it. I liked this Atlantic article which discussed rather than preached and tried to be explanatory rather than judgmental

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/the-killing-of-kajieme-powell/378899/?single_page=true

 

 

I was horrified, the guy was obviously not in his right mind to begin with but I saw no reason for him to be shot much less shot so many times... I couldn't see the knife but I carry a knife that would have been seen from that distance quite easily. My knife is a tool, I've never considered using it as a weapon, I've carried a pocket knife since I was 8 yo, he should have been tazed, It was not necessary to kill him. It makes me think we are heading toward a police state. It reminds me of this song, it keeps running in my head...

 

 

If I had the money I'd leave the country, I think it's going to do nothing but get worse...

[zapatos]

I was horrified, the guy was obviously not in his right mind to begin with but I saw no reason for him to be shot much less shot so many times...

From what I've been reading it seems like the problem is often more related to police tactics and training than to individual officers making poor decisions. When police shoot they are often trained to aim for center mass and shoot until the threat is gone. No shooting for arms or legs as you may miss and the bullet may hit someone in the background. Since you cannot know if one bullet will stop the threat, fire multiple times. You don't attempt to stop deadly force (for example a knife wielding suspect) with non-lethal force (for example a taser). Tasers may fail. As the St. Louis chief of police put it, "our officers have the right to be able to go home at the end of their shift".

 

I also read an article (couldn't find it) that talked about what an officer is experiencing during a shooting. As might be expected they are scared, adrenaline is pumping, and they often cannot really remember exactly what happened. In one case they asked the officer how many times he fired and he thought he fired twice. As it turned out he had actually emptied the magazine in his gun. If we don't want a person's biology to take over his conscious decision making, they may need tactics that allow the officers to stay out of harm's way as much as possible.

[Airbrush]

When police shoot they are often trained to aim for center mass and shoot until the threat is gone. No shooting for arms or legs as you may miss and the bullet may hit someone in the background.

 

Arms are much harder to hit, but a person's thighs are a larger, more stationary target. They should shoot at his legs to incapacitate and not kill. Officer Wilson was close enough to EASILY hit Michael in the legs.

[zapatos]

Arms are much harder to hit, but a person's thighs are a larger, more stationary target. They should shoot at his legs to incapacitate and not kill. Officer Wilson was close enough to EASILY hit Michael in the legs.

Yeah I wasn't suggesting one way was better than the other, I was just relaying what I heard about their training. I certainly haven't studied how they came to the determination that officers should not aim for legs. Do you have any information regarding the decision to aim for center mass over thighs, or were you basing your comment on what you felt was best for the shooting victim? And if so, did you also take into consideration what was best for the officer?

 

And just out of curiosity, how close was officer Wilson to Michael and how do you know? I haven't seen any sort of details yet.

 

I am also curious how you could know that Wilson could have "EASILY" hit Michael in the legs. Do you know anything about his proficiency with the weapon he was using, how far away Michael was, if Michael was moving, or if Wilson was impaired in any way (I have heard he may have been hit in the eye during a scuffle)?

Edited August 21, 2014 by zapatos

[Moontanman]

Yeah I wasn't suggesting one way was better than the other, I was just relaying what I heard about their training. I certainly haven't studied how they came to the determination that officers should not aim for legs. Do you have any information regarding the decision to aim for center mass over thighs, or were you basing your comment on what you felt was best for the shooting victim? And if so, did you also take into consideration what was best for the officer?

 

And just out of curiosity, how close was officer Wilson to Michael and how do you know? I haven't seen any sort of details yet.

 

I am also curious how you could know that Wilson could have "EASILY" hit Michael in the legs. Do you know anything about his proficiency with the weapon he was using, how far away Michael was, if Michael was moving, or if Wilson was impaired in any way (I have heard he may have been hit in the eye during a scuffle)?

 

 

You are closer to the place than me but why did they continue shooting when he was down?

[zapatos]

You are closer to the place than me but why did they continue shooting when he was down?

Just for clarity we are mixing the two shootings in this thread. Officer Wilson and Michael Brown (the first shooting and the reason for the protests) and the second shooting that you linked the video to. My most recent comment was in response to Airbrush's comment about the first shooting.

 

But to your question, I really don't have any idea. I also found the video quite disturbing and I've seen no response from the police regarding the video. It is unsettling watching a couple of shots fired after the man is lying on the ground, and deserves a serious investigation in my opinion.

 

Something else that bothers me is the fact that so many seem ready to condemn the officers involved in the shootings before an investigation can be done. The fact that a suspect can be shot six times, or shot even after hitting the ground certainly seems excessive to me. But I've read enough about the psychology of being in these situations, and have no personal experience at all, so that I don't feel that I can make an accurate judgement on whether these types of shootings can be justified or not. When I first started playing golf I would go to the driving range and whack the ball quite well. But as soon as I got on the course and had a couple of people looking at me I could barely hit the ball at all. And that is under almost no pressure. The point of that story being that I think it is important to be careful when making judgements on a shooting from the comfort of my living room.

 

Another story from St. Louis a few years back involved a couple of undercover cops chasing a drug suspect. A cop entered a narrow gangway between two buildings and saw a guy with a gun at the other end, about 25' away. Both guys opened fire, shooting a total of about 20 rounds. Turns out the guy at the other end was another cop, and neither was hit by any of the shots.

[Airbrush]

Do you have any information regarding the decision to aim for center mass over thighs, or were you basing your comment on what you felt was best for the shooting victim? And if so, did you also take into consideration what was best for the officer?

 

And just out of curiosity, how close was officer Wilson to Michael and how do you know? I haven't seen any sort of details yet.

 

I am also curious how you could know that Wilson could have "EASILY" hit Michael in the legs. Do you know anything about his proficiency with the weapon he was using, how far away Michael was, if Michael was moving, or if Wilson was impaired in any way (I have heard he may have been hit in the eye during a scuffle)?

 

Watching movies I often notice the cop could shoot the bad guy, at close range of course, in the legs which are a fairly large target.

 

From eye-witness reports of where Michael and Ofc Wilson tangled, from nearly touching to 20 feet away.

 

Michael was a big, fat guy. He was 6'3" or 6'4" and 275 lbs. Just the size of this kid is intimidating to anyone. But him walking down the middle of the street, after strong arm robbery, and cussing at the cop, THAT was more scarry.

 

Someone like that has huge thighs. Seems like an easy target for a cop who practices shooting his gun. Wilson seems to have freaked out and didn't even realize how many times he shot the kid, because he was up against a human tiger tank.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Airbrush

[ajb]

Michael was a big, fat guy. He was 6'3" or 6'4" and 275 lbs. Just the size of this kid is intimidating to anyone. But him walking down the middle of the street, after strong arm robbery, and cussing at the cop, THAT was more scarry.

 

... Wilson seems to have freaked out and didn't even realize how many times he shot the kid, because he was up against a human tiger tank.

Was Michael in a violent street gang?

 

I cannot find any official statmemt from the local police that confirms this. There are several blogs online with photos of him in poses with street gang hand signs. Not evidence of his membership, but it does give some indication of his social attitudes.

[CaptainPanic]

They should shoot at his legs to incapacitate and not kill.

But I've read enough about the psychology of being in these situations, and have no personal experience at all, so that I don't feel that I can make an accurate judgement on whether these types of shootings can be justified or not.

Isn't the problem that in the US, a policeman can never be sure that the suspect won't pull a gun and fire back, until he's dead? This just means that a policeman literally risks his life with every contact with a suspect. That knowledge is sure to bring the adrenaline to insane levels.

 

In the Netherlands, it is common practice for a policeman to fire warning shots: they deliberately miss, by shooting into the air. And then they have to explain why they used such excessive force (police firing a warning shot it front page news here).

 

So, while the segregation and discrimination are definitely a problem, the fact that people die seems very clearly related to only 1 thing: the availability of large amounts of guns. Because people don't kill people. Bullets do. But we risk to change the topic here. Perhaps we should continue the discussion about guns in another thread?

 

But it would be relevant to know whether the black population in Ferguson (or any other troubled neighborhood) are known to own and use guns a lot? What do the numbers say?

[Ringer]

But it would be relevant to know whether the black population in Ferguson (or any other troubled neighborhood) are known to own and use guns a lot? What do the numbers say?

Well, it depends on what you mean by a lot. I can't find the numbers for guns specifically but the number of assaults, rapes, robberies, and murders in Ferguson is 80 in 2012 (only 2 murders, 3 rapes, 38 robberies, and 37 assaults). To put that in perspective, where I live (which is usually considered a pretty safe place to live) had more than 3 times that in assaults alone (8 murders. . . 56 rapes [REALLY?!?!?], 199 robberies, and 297 assaults). We have a poor population that have been feeling more free to shoot at each other (they tend to have horrible aim) but there are very few known instances of police using highly excessive or deadly force when it is seemingly necessary.

 

Then again, the police seem to be rather 'hands off' around here, but that seems to be fairly consistent in any area that doesn't have a population with a lot of money.

[Ten oz]

Legal justification for lethal force and the neccessity to kill someone are not always moral equivalences. I live in the downtown area of a large California city. I do so because I enjoy seldom having to drive anywhere. That also means I am out walking around a good amount. Like all large cities in California there are a lot of homeless people in my city. Lots of them have mental issues. Not a day goes by I don't see someone arguing with themselves, walking in the middle of the street, yelling out to the sky, etc. just the other night I was walking behind a homeless man when he abruptly turned around and squared up to me. He demanded to know who I was working for and why I was following. As I moved to walk past him he positioned himself to block me. So I just crossed the street and continued home. Legally I probably could have justified a variety of violent acts against that man. If I was the sort that carried pepper spray, a taser, or a gun I probably could have used them and then merely explained that I feared for my life and thought the guy might've been armed. Hey, maybe he was. If an autopsy revealed some alcohol or drugs in the guys system I would probably receive some type of citizen award. Rather, just crossing the street worked out just fine. Demanding the man unblock the sidewalk and rightfully allow me to walk by would have created an altercation. One that would have been his fault for blocking the walk way in the first place but also one that I could and did easily avoid.

Who is to blame is not a black and white thing. Police are trained to control situations. They have for more training in control techniques, officer presence, and use of force than they do in de-escalation. Police don't cross the street. They don't take a step backward. They are in charge. They control the scene. When tensions are already high police can't often exacerbate a situation in my opinion. The former top cop of Seattle who was in charge during the World Trade Organization (WTO) protests that got out of hand recently reflected on his mistakes while discussing Ferguson - https://news.vice.com/article/seattles-former-police-chief-speaks-out-about-ferguson-and-police-brutality

[Ringer]

I should probably mention that my numbers are per 1000 residents, not the absolute number.

[iNow]

Was Michael in a violent street gang?I cannot find any official statmemt from the local police that confirms this. There are several blogs online with photos of him in poses with street gang hand signs. Not evidence of his membership, but it does give some indication of his social attitudes.

I appreciate the point you're illuminating, but don't think it's really relevant here. The officer began shooting from his car under questionable provocation. The officer then continued shooting him as he was running away in the opposite direction. When he then turned with his hands up and started to surrender,the officer continued shooting until he was dead. They then left him in the street for hours without calling an ambulance or medic. I'm not sure there are any social attitudes or gangs awful enough to warrant such a response.

[Ten oz]

I appreciate the point you're illuminating, but don't think it's really relevant here. The officer began shooting from his car under questionable provocation. The officer then continued shooting him as he was running away in the opposite direction. When he then turned with his hands up and started to surrender,the officer continued shooting until he was dead. They then left him in the street for hours without calling an ambulance or medic. I'm not sure there are any social attitudes or gangs awful enough to warrant such a response.

Good point. Whether or not Brown was a nice person has nothing to do with the legality of his shooting. Value judgements about the character of the dead in situations like this are often tossed around as a means to imply they may have had it coming to them.

 

There are 10 of millions of people who post photos of themselves on social media doing stupid things. Just as everyone who has ever taken a nude selfie is not a sexual deviant, everyone who has quoted rap lyrics (pop musics really) or struck a mean mugging pose isnt a gang member. It is silly to think a person's character or physiological state of mind might be evaluted by looking at their Facebook page. I think it is also fair to say that it reflects a lack of empathy.

[zapatos]

The officer then continued shooting him as he was running away in the opposite direction.

Citation?

 

When he then turned with his hands up and started to surrender,the officer continued shooting until he was dead.

Citation?

 

They then left him in the street for hours without calling an ambulance or medic.

Citation? Are you suggesting that they deprived a dead man of medical treatment?

[ajb]

I appreciate the point you're illuminating, but don't think it's really relevant here.

I think it would go a long way to understanding why the officer was in fear of his life.

 

The officer began shooting from his car under questionable provocation. The officer then continued shooting him as he was running away in the opposite direction. When he then turned with his hands up and started to surrender,the officer continued shooting until he was dead. They then left him in the street for hours without calling an ambulance or medic.

This is one story of the events I have read. I have also read others...

 

I have a feeling the truth will never really come out.

 

Good point. Whether or not Brown was a nice person has nothing to do with the legality of his shooting. Value judgements about the character of the dead in situations like this are often tossed around as a means to imply they may have had it coming to them.

My point is that this could have everything to do with the situation that lead to the shooting. If Brown was in a violent gang, if he stole the cigars using the threat of violence, if he believed that officer Wilson was there to arrest him for such a crime, then we have every reason to think that Brown would not have been cooperative with Wilson when approached. This is independent of the the question of officer Wilson knowing that Brown was a suspect at the time or not. Upon these assumptions, it is plausable that Brown did go for Wilson's gun and was a danger to the officer and/or others.

 

I base this only on what I have read in the news, which is not always very balanced. The theme seems to be "unarmed black teen shot by white male cop". If Brown had killed Wilson would we be having a similar discussion in reverse?

Edited August 23, 2014 by ajb

[iNow]

Citation? Citation? Citation?

This is one of the places where I've read it, but there are others. Independent witness testimony, and even the updates being made by police themselves, all seem to converge and reinforce these reports.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/michael-browns-body

Baden had other details: Brown was shot four times in the right arm and twice in the head. The shots seemed to have come from the front, except for one that had entered his body through the top of his head, as if he had been leaning forward. There were also reëntry wounds. The other bullet to his head hit him in the right eye and, according to the Times, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone.

 

What does it mean to be shot leaning forward? It can be because hes giving up, or because hes charging forward at the officer, Baden told the Times. That is as succinct a summary of the divided views as one might get. The police and some witnesses have said that the first shot was at or in Wilsons patrol car, where the two men struggled before Brown broke away. One witness, Tiffany Mitchell, has said that Wilson then fired his gun as Brown ran, and may have hit him. (The kids body jerked as if he was hit from behind.) She said that Brown then turned and tried to submit, but that Wilson kept firing. There is, however, no evidence of a shot in the back in the autopsy. (Nor is there word yet on whether six is the number of times Wilson fired his gun, or just the number of times he hit Brown. He might also have fired and missed.)

Are you suggesting that they deprived a dead man of medical treatment?

Yes, because that's what the facts show. It probably wouldn't have mattered after the head shot, though.

 

There are a few matters that the autopsy did settle, though. Michael Browns body was left in the street for hours after he was shot; as far as one can tell from the disjointed details released by the Ferguson and St. Louis County authorities, Wilson did not immediately call the shooting in or try to resuscitate Brown, and no E.M.T.s rushed him to the hospital. That raises the question of whether he might possibly have survived. Badens judgment is that he would not have. Four of the shots, or maybe five, were not definitively fatal. But, he said at a press conference, the sixth, the bullet through the top of Browns head, was one that no one could have survived.

I think you know me well enough to understand I try to avoid making up or sharing nonsense. I also understand there will be different viewpoints and perspectives on what happened. Ultimately, though, we can litigate and lawyer around the facts, but the core point is that his social attitudes aren't relevant and the officer very much appears to have ignored his mission to protect and serve and do no harm, and I suggest that applies no matter how you slice this thing.

 

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-michael-brown-dueling-narratives/

 

 

 

If Brown was in a violent gang, if he stole the cigars using the threat of violence, if he believed that officer Wilson was there to arrest him for such a crime, then we have every reason to think that Brown would not have been cooperative with Wilson when approached.

I think perhaps I've seen this happen so very often at this point in the US that I'm no longer quite as willing as you to so freely give the officer the benefit of the doubt. Even if I stipulate all of your if/then conditions in the post above, I see no reason Brown could not have exercised non-lethal options when approaching. Part of the issue at play here is the choice to immediately begin firing bullets and how that seems disproportionate and asymmetrical to the actual circumstances. Edited August 23, 2014 by iNow

[Ten oz]

My point is that this could have everything to do with the situation that lead to the shooting. If Brown was in a violent gang, if he stole the cigars using the threat of violence, if he believed that officer Wilson was there to arrest him for such a crime, then we have every reason to think that Brown would not have been cooperative with Wilson when approached. This is independent of the the question of officer Wilson knowing that Brown was a suspect at the time or not. Upon these assumptions, it is plausable that Brown did go for Wilson's gun and was a danger to the officer and/or others.I base this only on what I have read in the news, which is not always very balanced. The theme seems to be "unarmed black teen shot by white male cop". If Brown had killed Wilson would we be having a similar discussion in reverse?

The word "if" appears a lot in your reasoning regarding Brown's history and possible motives. Making an honest attempt to entertain "if" I come to different suspicions than you have. Let's assume for a moment all your "if" are correct. That Brown did assult Wilson and go after his weapon while Wilson was in the car. The first shot was fired while Wilson was in the car. All versions agree with that. What followed? Brown was not shot and killed in the car. How did Brown get from wrestling inside the car to where he died? At some point he had to have fled or at the very least significantly moved away from Wilson. At that point what threat did Brown pose to Wislon?

[ajb]

Part of the issue at play here is the choice to immediately begin firing bullets and how that seems disproportionate and asymmetrical to the actual circumstances.

At that point what threat did Brown pose to Wislon?

From what I have read Brown charged at Wislon. Maybe in hindsight he over reacted but we must give the officer the benefit of the doubt. Anyone would be scared for their saftey if charged by Brown and especially if already attacked by him.

 

The word "if" appears a lot in your reasoning regarding Brown's history and possible motives. Making an honest attempt to entertain "if" I come to different suspicions than you have. Let's assume for a moment all your "if" are correct.

I can only say "if" as I nor you are know the full facts of the incident or the background of Brown.

 

That Brown did assult Wilson and go after his weapon while Wilson was in the car. The first shot was fired while Wilson was in the car. All versions agree with that.

This is also my understanding based on what I have read.

 

What followed? Brown was not shot and killed in the car. How did Brown get from wrestling inside the car to where he died? At some point he had to have fled or at the very least significantly moved away from Wilson.

The version of events that fits this is that Wilson gave chase and then Brown charged at the officer.

 

To my mind this seems to fit better than some cop with no record of any trouble gunning down a innocent black man in the street just because.

[Ten oz]

"According to the account of the St. Louis County police, Wilson attempted to get out of his car and Brown pushed him back inside. A struggle ensued inside the car, in which Brown tried to take the officer’s gun. A shot was fired from inside the car. The officer then stepped out of the car and shot Brown, who died of his injuries."

http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675

 

So the first shot was fired inside the car. Brown flees and Wilson gives chase. At some point the claim is that Brown stopped running away and aggressively charged toward Wilson who had no choice but to protect himself by shooting Brown 6 times. An average person can sprint between 12 -15 miles per hour or 19 - 24 Kilometers per hour. Brown was a big guy so let's put his aggressive charge at the low end 12mph or 19kph. That converts to more than 17 feet or 5 meters per second. Wilson was able to hit Brown, a moving target, 6 times including 2 head shots. According to a study done by the Force Research Center a person an average can a semi automatic pistol 3 times in 1.5 seconds. Some people fast as 3 times per second. http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/1227784-New-tests-Even-inexperienced-shooters-can-be-fast-accurate-when-shooting-cops/

It took a minium of 2 seconds to fire 6 shots. That means if Brown was charging full speed, 12 mph or 17 feet per second, Brown would've been more than 34ft or 10m at point when the the first round hit Brown. Actually even further away than that if we had the distance between than when Brown fell. I don't know the final distance between them though so I can't add it. keep in mind the 34ft/10m is first shot fired distance. How long Brown was charging before Wilson opened fired would've placed him even further away still at the point when Brown stopped fleeing and turned around.

 

*I understand the above numbers are loose estimates at best. They are based on Wilson's claim of a full speed charge.

 

From what I have read Brown charged at Wislon. Maybe in hindsight he over reacted but we must give the officer the benefit of the doubt. Anyone would be scared for their saftey if charged by Brown and especially if already attacked by him.I can only say "if" as I nor you are know the full facts of the incident or the background of Brown.This is also my understanding based on what I have read.The version of events that fits this is that Wilson gave chase and then Brown charged at the officer.

Benefit of the doubt goes both ways. Both Wilson and Brown get it right? As described in detail above Brown was a significant distance away from Wilson. Brown got to that distance by running away from Wilson following their initial exchange at the car. So according to Wilson's account Brown, in the middle of an open street and unarmed, chose to stop fleeing and instead launch a attack counter attack that required cover a significant distance vs an armed cop.

 

That is viewing Wilson's account only.

 

 

To my mind this seems to fit better than some cop with no record of any trouble gunning down a innocent black man in the street just because.

It doesn't fit that Wilson with no record would gun down an innocent man but it does fit that Brown would try to murder a policeman rather than just following task direction to get out of the street? I doubt believe Wilson was looking to kill an innocent person and I don't believe Brown was looking to murder a cop. Both are one dimensional characterization.

 

You have posted about Brown's past and possible criminal relationships but so far ignored the history of the St. Louis County police. Let's not forget that last year the police Lieutenant there was fired for directed his people to target blacks. Surely that is meaningful history to consider.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-county-police-lieutenant-who-allegedly-targeted-blacks-is/article_691eb995-7247-5c0b-a48b-e7048c777b37.html

[Airbrush]

Does anyone know if the video of the strong-arm robbery was confirmed to be Michael Brown?

 

When a witness said Michael "bum rushed" the cop, no news report I've seen ever defined the term. I guessed it meant he tried to head-butt the cop, but I was way off. Research shows "to attack or seize with an overpowering rush."

http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-origins-of-the-term-bum-rush-1408721707

 

I've heard that Michael weighed 300 lbs. Can anyone confirm that?

 

Situation:

1 - general bad relationship between cops and black community as evidenced by demonstrations, Michael was only the latest case

2 - 300 lb youth and friend walking down center of street, cop not aware of robberty nearby

3 - youths commanded to get out of street

4 - who knows? probably some cursing and cussing going on, right?

5 - 300 lb youth acts threatening, like an idiot, and cop flips out

 

Edit: Cop not aware of robbery nearby

Edited August 23, 2014 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

 

http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675

 

@ Airbrush, Newsweek summarizes what is known and what is not known in the link. Decent impartial review of the case.

[Airbrush]

Thanks for the info Ten oz. That answers one of my questions:

 

"....The Ferguson police later clarified that Wilson did not know that Brown was a suspect in a robbery when he approached the two young men for walking in the middle of the street."

[zapatos]

This is one of the places where I've read it, but there are others. Independent witness testimony, and even the updates being made by police themselves, all seem to converge and reinforce these reports.

This goes to my point from a few posts back. People seem to be interpreting data to meet their own preconceived notions, both in support of the officer and in support of the family. And this even includes people who are sticklers for evidence and have themselves argued how unreliable eye witness accounts are. All we have so far are conflicting eyewitness accounts and hearsay, and the results of a second autopsy which is hindered in its accuracy by the fact that the first autopsy would have made the second autopsy less accurate. Yet in your post you made assertions about what happened that you are unable to support.

 

"The officer began shooting from his car..."

According to the Newsweek article Wilson seems to claim Brown was responsible for the shot going off in the car. I didn't see any claim that first shot came from Wilson.

 

"When he then turned with his hands up and started to surrender,the officer continued shooting..."

According to the officer and an audio that was captured as someone was filming the aftermath, Brown charged at the officer.

 

"The officer then continued shooting him as he was running away..."

Not according to the officer. At this time we only know what the second autopsy told us, which is that there were probably six shots that hit Brown, and none from behind. We don't yet know how many shots were even fired. What happens if we find that only six shots were fired? What if there were no shell casing in or near the car, indicating that possibly no shouts were fired from in the car?

 

Yes, because that's what the facts show. It probably wouldn't have mattered after the head shot, though.

I guess I should just have asked why you thought that was significant. We know the body laid there for hours, as it could not be moved until the scene was processed. If Brown was dead then why did they need a medic?

 

"...the officer very much appears to have ignored his mission to protect and serve and do no harm, and I suggest that applies no matter how you slice this thing."

This is the first I've ever heard that an officer's mission includes doing no harm. Given that police are authorized to use deadly force and carry various levels of harmful weapons, that seems like a statement that may be influenced by your strong feelings surrounding this event rather than on the evidence. I'll grant that whatever their mission statement is that they are likely not achieving it, but we should not hold them to standards that we have not set for them or that they have not set for themselves.

 

"Even if I stipulate all of your if/then conditions in the post above, I see no reason Brown could not have exercised non-lethal options when approaching."

But then again you were not there and you have not seen the results of the local, state or Federal investigations. You do not know what non-lethal options he had available to him or if he had time to use them. You do not know whether or not he was impaired by a blow to the head.

 

We simply do not yet know enough about what happened to make very many definitive statements.

[iNow]

Fair enough. I concede the point. I'm probably also conflating this incident with the dozens of other unarmed black kids who are getting killed by police or thrown in prison at rates far exceeding whites, even for crimes whites tend to commit at higher rates. I acknowledge and stipulate that.

 

I ultimately see a broader set of problems with policing in our country and I certainly need to be more cautious when speculating about specific incidents. You were right to push back.

 

It just bothers me on a visceral level that we seem to be replacing, "Innocent until proven guilty" and "shoot to immobilize" and "there are ways to deescalate situations without lazily killing those involved" with "shoot to kill" and "shoot first, ask questions later" and "look at a cop the wrong way and he can shoot me 6 times until I'm dead even when I am unarmed." It seems somehow counter to ideals of freedom about which we as a nation seem so proud and so constantly evangelical.