The utter stupidity of protesting the Ferguson incident is out of this world baffling

[The Big Dunn]

Strong-arm robbery means there was no weapon - that you "strong armed" them... That you used your own strength, and body to rob them, rather than a weapon.

Mke Brown charged at the cop from 25 feet away/ This was after he attacked the cop, and tried to shoot him with his own gun (this is buttressed by physical evidence).

So you have a guy outweighing you by 100 pounds, who just tried to shoot you with your own gun, and beat you with his fists, charging at you... You have no tazer. Do you try and wait for him to get within your range, running full speed momentum at you to use your pepper spray, or use your baton? Or do you shoot? I'm going to shoot - because that's the only thing that guarantees I stop a potential life-threatening situation (for my own life).

If the prior situation had no happened, where he did all that, then I'd probably try to spray him, and beat him with my baton. But knowing hs intent is to either kill, or cause extreme bodly harm - I'm not going to give him the slighest chance to succeed at this. Are you?

you obviously don't know what the definition of strong armed robbery is.

How does one try to shoot a cop when he never had possession of any gun? you went from trying to take his gun in your previous post to trying to kill him in your next. you should be clear.

You do not shoot an unarmed man. If you feel you must, you take shots that debilitate the offender so that an arrest can be made-that is SOP.

You have no idea what the intent is-did Mike Brown ever say I am going to kill you?

If you are ok with a cop killing an unarmed man, that's too bad. Had the officer followed SOP-both would be alive. MIke Brown would have wounds in his legs, been arrested, and none of this other stuff would have happened.

Instead we have a dead 18 yr old who had no weapon and all the other stuff. Hopefully, you wont ever have to experience what Mike Brown's parents are right now.

[Hitman Hodgson]

Racism, inequality and xenophobia are still major issues in almost every country. But trying to turn every criminal incident into a race row despite facts and logic indicating otherwise just causes further resentment and mistrust.

[Hitman Hodgson]

you obviously don't know what the definition of strong armed robbery is.

How does one try to shoot a cop when he never had possession of any gun? you went from trying to take his gun in your previous post to trying to kill him in your next. you should be clear.

You do not shoot an unarmed man. If you feel you must, you take shots that debilitate the offender so that an arrest can be made-that is SOP.

You have no idea what the intent is-did Mike Brown ever say I am going to kill you?

If you are ok with a cop killing an unarmed man, that's too bad. Had the officer followed SOP-both would be alive. MIke Brown would have wounds in his legs, been arrested, and none of this other stuff would have happened.

Instead we have a dead 18 yr old who had no weapon and all the other stuff. Hopefully, you wont ever have to experience what Mike Brown's parents are right now.

I must admit I have been wondering why he didn't shoot him in the legs or shoulder. I hope the police have a rethink about how they deal with situations like this, I said on another thread that surely an officer should have more options of non lethal force available to him.

[squealpiggy]

I must admit I have been wondering why he didn't shoot him in the legs or shoulder.

For one thing you're not allowed to. Hitting him in the leg is as likely to kill him as hitting him in the chest but you're more likely to miss. Hitting him in the shoulder is also more likely to miss as well and if you miss you're either hitting him in the chest anyway or you're hitting a bystander. In any case a hit to the shoulder could potentially kill him or it could have no effect at all on the attack.

Centre mass is what officers are trained to shoot at because it's easiest to hit the target and most likely to stop the threat quickly. Anybody making claims like "they should shoot him in the leg" or "they should shoot the weapon out of their hand" watches too many movies.

I hope the police have a rethink about how they deal with situations like this, I said on another thread that surely an officer should have more options of non lethal force available to him.

But non-lethal force is never going to be used in situations where the officer feels like they are in imminent danger of life threatening injury. Not while deadly force is an option. And I don't think anyone in the US is seriously arguing to disarm police officers.

[The Big Dunn]

I must admit I have been wondering why he didn't shoot him in the legs or shoulder. I hope the police have a rethink about how they deal with situations like this, I said on another thread that surely an officer should have more options of non lethal force available to him.

Had he done that, Mike Brown would have been alive and the officer would face an inquiry as to why he choose to shoot an unarmed man. Killing Mike Brown makes it easier for him to defend himself because when the officers get there-certain procedures (for example checking the gun for fingerprints) are routinely forgotten.

Officers have batons, mase, tazers and are trained in hand to hand combat so they can effectively detain an unarmed man. Mike Brown is very big-follow SOP and wait for backup.

[The Big Dunn]

For one thing you're not allowed to. Hitting him in the leg is as likely to kill him as hitting him in the chest but you're more likely to miss. Hitting him in the shoulder is also more likely to miss as well and if you miss you're either hitting him in the chest anyway or you're hitting a bystander. In any case a hit to the shoulder could potentially kill him or it could have no effect at all on the attack.

Centre mass is what officers are trained to shoot at because it's easiest to hit the target and most likely to stop the threat quickly. Anybody making claims like "they should shoot him in the leg" or "they should shoot the weapon out of their hand" watches too many movies.



But non-lethal force is never going to be used in situations where the officer feels like they are in imminent danger of life threatening injury. Not while deadly force is an option. And I don't think anyone in the US is seriously arguing to disarm police officers.

officers take shooting training and practice regularly just so they can non lethally wound a suspect in a way that keeps them alive they can provide evidence, testimony, etc. Prosecutors never want evidence destroyed.

They are trained to use deadly force in those situations that require it. Did this situation require it?

That's the real issue-why police feel their life is in danger when faced with unarmed men of color when in similar situations with white men they do not?

[squealpiggy]

Had he done that, Mike Brown would have been alive and the officer would face an inquiry as to why he choose to shoot an unarmed man. Killing Mike Brown makes it easier for him to defend himself because when the officers get there-certain procedures (for example checking the gun for fingerprints) are routinely forgotten.

Checking the gun for fingerprints? Was there some doubt as to who fired the gun?

Officers have batons, mase, tazers and are trained in hand to hand combat so they can effectively detain an unarmed man. Mike Brown is very big-follow SOP and wait for backup.

And if he beats you up, steals your gun and shoots you dead in the street while you wait then it's OK, back-up can move your corpse.

[Derranged]

The looting is stupid and counterproductive.

The protesting isn't.

They have every right to be mad because there was enough evidence for an indictment, especially since how the police deliberately botched the investigation to save the cop's ass. I'm not a lawyer but even I know the burden of proof for an indictment does not have to be as strong as it would for a conviction. Prosecutors are notorious for going easier on cops than other defendants.

Cops really should have body cameras. I'd love to see the racist's excuse for not having them:

"Deerrr! We needs them thar cameras for watchin the Mexicans and the Queers!"

[squealpiggy]

officers take shooting training and practice regularly just so they can non lethally wound a suspect in a way that keeps them alive they can provide evidence, testimony, etc. Prosecutors never want evidence destroyed.

It's clear you don't have the first idea about how effective handguns are, what police proficiency is like and how accuracy suffers in stressful situations. You also don't know what sort of damage a bullet can do, especially a hollow point as used by law enforcement in the US.

They are trained to use deadly force in those situations that require it. Did this situation require it?

According to the officer yes, it did.

That's the real issue-why police feel their life is in danger when faced with unarmed men of color when in similar situations with white men they do not?

Sample bias. These situations occur with white suspects as well.

They have every right to be mad because there was enough evidence for an indictment, especially since how the police deliberately botched the investigation to save the cop's ass.

That's a strange claim to make. Deliberately botched the investigation? Even the Ferguson protesters aren't making that claim.

I'm not a lawyer but even I know the burden of proof for an indictment does not have to be as strong as it would for a conviction. Prosecutors are notorious for going easier on cops than other defendants.

And it went to a Grand Jury instead of a prosecutor.

Cops really should have body cameras. I'd love to see the racist's excuse for not having them:

"Deerrr! We needs them thar cameras for watchin the Mexicans and the Queers!"

Body cameras should be standard issue. Jurisdictions that have them show a significant drop in complaints against officers, probably due to officers behaving better but also to people realising that frivolous complaints are not going to be supported.

I hear of cases where people make complaints against officers only to quickly and quietly drop them once they know the incident was on video.

[The Big Dunn]

Checking the gun for fingerprints? Was there some doubt as to who fired the gun?

And if he beats you up, steals your gun and shoots you dead in the street while you wait then it's OK, back-up can move your corpse.

checking for fingerprints on the gun goes a long way to showing if Mike Brown actually grabbed the gun-thus giving us more insight into justifying the officer's actions.

SOP is designed for officer protection. If the officer does not engage the suspect until backup arrives, s/he significantly reduces the likelihood lethal force is needed-which is what almost all PD's strive for.

Mike Brown was not holding a hostage, wasn't in a vehicle. The officer was so afraid of him because of his size-why engage?