| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
It's police standard that 7 yards is too close if the attacker has a knife. A moderately healthy man can close that distance in less than seconds. It's true. I've practiced weapon form martial arts for more than 2 decades and fighting sword against pole arm requires you to rush the enemy and deflect the one blow he has time to throw before striking him. He has a big reach and power advantage so speed and violence are the tactic you need to win. It's astonishingly quick and the time intervals involved are in the small fractions of a second. We use video to analyze fights ( just like any sport) and blows happen between frames. I still have not heard the results of the investigation and will form an opinion on the shooting after I do. | ||
| S2t_bama |
So, where was your outrage when a CLEARLY unarmed white college kid was shot by an African American policeman in South Alabama? http://blog.al.com/live/2013/03/university_of_sout h_alabama_co_3.html There was very little, and the officer was not tried. It was a tragedy, just like this one. | ||
| Blake |
from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown -autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html Who buried that detail, choosing instead to lead with the "shot six times" narrative. Deceivers suck. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
I think you misread what is being said. There is simply argument against the statement that there's no way the cop was justified. The point isn't about the cop being justified or not. It's about some people here appearing to support the cops action (therfore any cop / any similar incident) before ALL the facts are known. Rocket in England | ||
| Reindog |
Who is supporting the cops action before the facts are known? I am reserving judgement and I believe I've already stated as such. What I've read on this thread is that others are also reserving judgement. | ||
| Fredfast |
"Fred, what fact could come forward that would make you decide this was a justified shooting by the police officer?" Only if he were reaching for the cops gun and since he was shot at a distance, that was hardly the case. Because he wasn't shot in the back hardly justifies the cops actions. You're definition of bigotry applies to you and your buddies. | ||
| Reepicheep |
There are two possible scenarios at this moment. 1) An individual who had assaulted a store owner during the commission of a theft, also assaulted a cop who had stopped him for potentially unrelated reasons 15 minute later. 2) A cop, who had no complaints lodged against him in 6 years of service, executed a young black man for no reason by shooting him in the back from a long distance away, in spite of the fact that there were witnesses and forensic evidence left at the scene. Why wouldn't you support the cop before all the facts are known? Particularly when the facts that are emerging all seem to support the original description of the event from the police officer? "Support" doesn't mean there isn't a full, unbiased, and methodical investigation. We all demand that. But if you ask me what happened now, it looks to me, without knowing all the facts but knowing some of the facts, that the officer shot as he was being assaulted. If facts start emerging that show otherwise, I will absolutely change my mind. | ||
| Reindog |
Ummmm... it is NEVER a good idea to run towards a policeman. The assailant might have a weapon and the policeman must make a split second judgment. It is amazing that some can't understand this basic fact. | ||
| Reepicheep |
At what range is a 200 pound 30 year old policeman allowed to start defending them selves against a charging 20 year old 250 pound linebacker Fred? What is the efficacy of less lethal weapons like pepper spray or a tazer under those circumstances? Let the facts guide you. | ||
| Fredfast |
"Ummmm... it is NEVER a good idea to run towards a policeman." That is an assumption based on nothing. | ||
| Fredfast |
"charging" Again an assumption "What is the efficacy of less lethal weapons like pepper spray or a tazer under those circumstances?" You tell me. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
According to eyewitesses, the cop's gun was already out and trained on the "kid" when he charged or at least advanced. No time to change weapons for the fancy tazer. None of us were actually there. I hope video surfaces or something non-biassed. Sharpton and his ilk make hay from this crap. Like they have aircraft ready to go at a moment's notice. I don't understand why anyone still listens to him, let alone puts a microphone in front of him. | ||
| Fast1075 |
Gigantic thug.I have been the victim of such in the past. If someone like that grabs me by the neck like he did the shop keeper, there will be no trouble finding the powder residue, or doubt about where it came from. Yup, I'll just intimidate that cop with the gun by running back at him after i just bitch slapped him, you know, for more street cred. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I'm discussing a plausible scenario Fred, so it can be weighed on it's merits. You are so controlled by emotions and desires for outcome you appear to have lost the ability for objective and rational thought. Seriously. It must make your life difficult. Anyway, I'll give you my opinion based on some self defense training (sufficient for an Ohio concealed carry permit), and coaching youth sports such as football and lacrosse. I can put the two together in terms of what a motivated young man can do, how long it will take him to do it, and what the "window of opportunity" is. First, there is no way you are going to get and deploy either pepper spray or a taser in the time it takes a athletic kid to cover 20 feet (assumption about the kid and the distance). If you already have a weapon out and safety off and pointed the right direction, you can probably get off some shots at somebody charging, but only because you were already ready. I would say a most young athletic people can cover 20 feet from a standing start in 1.5 seconds. I probably have a few Lacrosse players that could do it in .7 seconds or less. (Objective citation: http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime .html) The human brain takes about .2 seconds to even perceive a thread. The "normal" reaction time for a motorcyclist to be able to respond to a threat on the road is 1.5 seconds (and we should be planning our defensive riding appropriately, for ourselves and the people around us). I think in this case, we can crank this way down because in the scenario we are objectively considering, the cop would already have had his gun drawn and be on high alert. So eat up the .2 seconds just for his brain to be able to process the event started, toss in another .2 seconds to be able to make a life and death decision (which is probably short), and .4 seconds has elapsed. At that point, someone charging would have covered be about 7 feet from being able to reach the officer, and would already have sufficient momentum to carry them for contact even if they sustained serious gunshot injuries (the kinetic energy of a 9mm round is not enough to slow down a 200lb + individual). This isn't the movies, a 9mm round in a 2 liter pop bottle won't move it backwards much, it will just punch a hole through it. If it was swinging towards you as you shot it, it would still be swinging towards you after it hit, but spraying a lot more pop). So from a 20 foot away charge, it's likely the cop, at best, had about .5 to 1 second of "discretionary time" to deal with the threat. No way he can grab pepper spray. No way he could taze (which is a one shot deal and not particularly reliable on the first shot...). The cop would already have his weapon out because he is facing two hostile suspects and he does not know if they are armed or not. In this scenario, if it happens, the cop has two choices. Shoot, or wait to get tackled. If he starts shooting, he has about .5 to 1 second window to stop the threat. He can't shoot, wait and see how bad the injury is, then decide to shoot again. The *entire* window is at most 1.5 seconds long, and the cop has at that time decided they are fighting for their life. They shoot until the threat stops being a threat, make sure they can secure the situation, then try to render aid. So when you map the math out, if the confrotation started at 20 feet, the officer would have been hard pressed to even get 5 shots off in that 1 second window. That's tight but possible, but no way there can be any kind of assessment during that window beyond "threat keeps getting closer". Thats one possible scenario that we can map to the forensic evidence and what we know of the principals involved. Throw up another scenario Fred, and we can look at that. Cop is closet bigot, gets bitch slapped in his patrol car, and instead of calling for backup decides to execute the punk from 25 feet away by shooting him in the back? Ok, easy to tell, the bullet holes show exactly where they entered. Hmm. They were the front. So that can't be it. OK, same deal, angry cop decides to execute kid as the kid faces him, and fires 5 rounds into kid to make sure he can't testify. Except a round had already gone off in a struggle by the car. So cop fires one round from his holster at his feet before he decides to execute the kid? Huh? And the cop does it in spite of several potential witnesses? The cop has had a spotless record for 6 years. The kid had just assaulted and intimidated a store owner in the commision of a theft (a felony) in the last 10 minutes. We are just armchair quarterbacking. These are just hypothetical scenarios, and nobody here wants anything but a complete and impartial investigation. Since the media struggles with both expertise and facts (I would put several people in this thread up against any of the major network news reporters in terms of lack of bias, understanding of the situation, and technical knowledge), we fill the vacuum they create. | ||
| Aesquire |
As someone who has NOT been following the 24/7 constant news feed I have a question. Have the reported "facts" changed since the initial report? Has anyone determined who started the looting? | ||
| Fredfast |
Yea, I did. Reep - All of your scenarios but one favor the cop. Being a gun owner, I expect that. I only have a baseball bat. You continue to assume that the victim charged the cop. That maybe the cops story but the victims story can't be told. The last two bullets hit his head. How's this for a scenario. The first four shots were below the neck. The victim doubles over so that the last two bullets hit him in the head. Maybe and maybe not. In any case, I can not justify a cop shooting anyone when there is no evidence that the victim has a gun. In NYC a chock hold is even against procedure. I don't think gun rights activists will ever get it. It's the answer for everything. | ||
| Britchri10 |
Fredfast: Preface: I'm a Foreign national. Don't like the idea of armed police. I'm Leftward leaning politically etc'. IMHO: (& experience) a gun is not necessary in order for a potential assailant to pose a threat. 6'3" and 300 lbs is a very intimidating sight when moving towards you, regardless of the speed of the advance (which is unknown at this time.) If he got 4 in the body & two in the head, that's good shooting by a stressed LEO. BTW: Non-gun owner here: Don't need one, don't want one, I believe they cause more problems than they solve. Chris C | ||
| Hootowl |
According to the picture posted, most of the shots hit him in the arm and hand. That would not make him double over. The eye witness says he went towards the cop...the one with whom he had just been in a physical confrontation. The witness in the recording, not the initial one who obviously lied, since dude was not shot in the back. Scenario: I struggle with a very large man, he gives me a concussion, as we struggle for the weapon. I manage to get a shot off, and he exits my vehicle, only to turn back and come towards me again. If I can see well enough after the blow to the head (Perhaps that's why he missed center mass 6 times) I'm shooting the bastard. So far, to me, it looks like that's what happened. I was perfectly willing to believe that the cop was not justified, based on the initial report, but didn't want to run out in the street and start burning things just yet. Not until we knew more. Like the vast majority of police shootings (and the TM shooting) once more information became available, it appears he may well have been justified in shooting to defend his own life. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I knew I shouldn't have clicked on this thread. Words can't even begin to describe Fred's mindset. In any case, one less thug in the world. I say good riddance. | ||
| Fredfast |
"once more information became available," Other than where the shots hit the victim, what information do you have that the rest of the world doesn't and sources please. | ||
| Fredfast |
"I knew I shouldn't have clicked on this thread." Next time, don't. | ||
| Reepicheep |
You do realize you are a bigot, right? And the worst kind of bigot, one that projects it on others and claims the moral high ground? Fred, you seem pathologically incapable of having an objective discussion. Seriously, it must make people around you incredibly frustrated with you, while you seem to remain oblivious to why. That has to come at a really high personal cost. The good news is that its easy to fix if you work at it. You proposed a narrative. Good. Lets take an objective look at it. Do you seriously believe three critical elements it requires? 1) That the Cop, who served for 6 years in a minority community with no complaints suddenly, decided to execute the kid in cold blood because the kid was black? 2) That the cop, who understood the nature of investigations and knew there was at least one witness staring right at him, executed one of the kids but not the other. 3) That the kid could not have represented a significant threat to the cop? And that of the two credible scenarios, you are choosing this one over the one where a kid that just assaulted somebody assaulted somebody else. We can keep thinking through that scenario, I can think of a few ways to explore parts of it. I just want to hear that you objectively think it was likely. You need to catch up with the whole cop thing and gun owners as well. I just finished reading this book. I dare you to read it and have a meaningful conversation about it with us: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ECGP2Z6/ref=oh _aui_d_detailpage_o03_?ie=UTF8&psc=1 It is a great reflection from a young soldier survivor about personal honor, a corrupt military police state, and the role of honor in the midst of it. Unlike most histories, it was written right after the war and "un-revised". If you think about the American holocaust that is "Choice", it's &^%^%%^ chilling. | ||
| Court |
Dr. Baden failed to mention that also citing, as has been mentioned, that he and his associate (from Washburn University in Topeka, KS) were provide access ONLY to the body and to no other physical evidence. Baden made it quite clear that he could not even, with respect to one of the wounds in the arm, say if the shot (that one in particular) came from the front or the back. We don't have but a smattering of tidbits of information . . . there were eye witnesses, including the officer. I see these things a bit differently I suppose as the guy who appeared to be no threat to me was about 35' away . . . . when he shot me 3 times. I guess . . . it may bear on how I, in concert with my training as a USMC Expert Marksman, would defend myself with a sidearm. In the instant case . . . . I'm going to wait on the facts. One thing . . however . . I am certain of is that being upset about a perceived injustice doesn't convent on anyone the "right" to steal a color tv. | ||
| Fredfast |
"it may bear on how I, in concert with my training as a USMC Expert Marksman," Curt - I now know who you are. You're the guy on that commercial that says "Stay thirsty my friend". | ||
| Reepicheep |
First thing Fred has gotten right on this thread! | ||
| Reindog |
Curt has actually been known to ride Buells before a couple of y'all were even born. | ||
| D_adams |
Curt. Heh. I wonder if he's related to Eddie Buell in some fashion. (Message edited by d_adams on August 18, 2014) | ||
| Reindog |
The Troll is slowly awakening to the fact that there are a lot of contributors here with trained, reasoned minds and who possess a wealth of life experiences to draw on. We are not flapping our jaws for the sake of it. We are concerned about the future of The United States of America which is the greatest country in the history of countries, bar none. Mob mentalities fed by the Machiavellian philosophy of the jerk in the White House serve only to divide us as a people. I am a strident believer in equal opportunity and will fight for it. Who is John Galt? | ||
| Reepicheep |
Seriously, read that book I linked above. It perfectly captures the issue with cops. Do I respect them? Absolutely. Do I appreaciate the work they do? Heck yes. Do I think they should be accountable like normal people for misdeeds? No. I think they should be *more* accountable. Because they get elevated privileges and are acting on the authority of society. No crime is a petty crime if its done by a cop as part of their police role and privileges. And if things really go pear shaped? I have no illusions. The police force (though who knows which current cops would remain there) will be the ones to line me up against the wall and execute me. Read the book. It captures the conflict of an honerable man and dedicated soldier effectively deluded and caught up in an evil regime doing horrible things. It is how it is done, and it is chilling to see how it's being done to us. But it has hints in there of how it can be stopped. | ||
| Hootowl |
'Sources please' This thread. The link to the other witness. With audio. |
