Ferguson: Police Kill 18yo Black Male; Fire Gas/Rubber Bullets Into Protesting Crowds

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is a kid there in the first place?

This was my initial question too. I can understand supporting the protests, but..

I'd like to think that cops are trained to shoot low to immobilize aggressors without killing them. I guess when a black kid's charging you all bets are off?

You shoot for center mass, AKA chest. If you're a cop and you shoot someone in the head, you're not following that rule.
 
double tap. cop watched too many movies.

It's not a double tap if its from 35 feet away - more likely the cop squeezed off a bunch of rounds and they hit the guy at different points of his fall/stumble

You shoot for center mass, AKA chest. If you're a cop and you shoot someone in the head, you're not following that rule.

Yeah, but you are talking about several dozen feet away or more and I doubt the cop was taking careful aim. It's hard enough to aim a handgun as it is.
 
I'd like to think that cops are trained to shoot low to immobilize aggressors without killing them. I guess when a black kid's charging you all bets are off?

Nope upper body chest area


Tasers and Pepper spray neutralize a threat.

You only shoot someone in the upper body if you're trying to kill them.

Yup. However not all cops have tazers. Mace is used at short to midrange.

If he was 35 feet away then he wasnt a threat. So cop should be arrested.
 
Black woman on CNN is saying that cops are lying about shots fired and fighting breaking out.

Don't worry black woman, CNN isn't going to believe you.
 
I'm not sure if I understand the implications of these autopsy results in terms of what they prove. Now, the lack of residue proves once and for all that he obviously wasn't killed over a struggle for the firearm. Not that either narrative right now was still suggesting that, but it seems we can put that to bed. Now, the lack of bullet wounds to the back obviously proves he wasn't shot in the back, but doesn't prove that he wasn't shot at while fleeing. However, as I understand it, neither prevailing narrative disagrees that Brown did run away at some point. As for where the accounts go next, we have one story that Brown surrendered and one that argued that Brown proceeded to rush at the police officer.

My gut instinct is that it's hard to believe that an unarmed individual would rush at a police officer from a distance. So, as I have from the beginning, I'm inclined to think that multiple gunshot wounds doesn't bode well for Wilson. However -- and I'm not playing devil's advocate here -- I can't help but shake the feeling that the autopsy results don't really clear anything up, and that what you take away from it probably hinges on what you believed beforehand. Does it tell the story of someone with his hands in the air mercilessly gunned down by police, or the story of someone rushing at a scared officer? Again, I'm not playing devil's advocate here. I don't believe the Wilson defense at all. I'm just trying to understand how this autopsy proves the former (Brown gunned down after surrendering) and not the latter (shot at multiple times while running at officer).

The autopsy stresses that more information is needed, but this seems to be important:

Autopsy said:
Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.

He was shot in his arm 4 times on the interior side, which lines up with if he had his hands up surrendering. If he was charging at the officer, unless he runs absurdly weird, the wounds would be on the outside of the arm
 
I'd like to think that cops are trained to shoot low to immobilize aggressors without killing them. I guess when a black kid's charging you all bets are off?

Nope. That can kill you just as fast, really, and you are more likely to miss and kill bystanders. Guns are used as deadly force, and only ever fired with the intent to kill.
 
Nope upper body chest area




Yup. However not all cops have tazers. Mace is used at short to midrange.

If he was 35 feet away then he wasnt a threat. So cop should be arrested.

I should clarify that the body was 35 feet from the car which was the site of the initial struggle. We don't know how far away the officer was, but no witness has indicated that the officer gave chase.
 
To me, the more likely scenario is that the cop shot at him as he ran, the kid stopped and turned around, and the cop just unloaded on him.

How many shots did the witnesses say they heard? I find it hard to believe the cop missed every shot in the back and even while Mike turned the cop missed and didn't land a side shot, then lands the last front facing 6.
 
He fled, now possibly shots darted past him, not hitting. He's scared and knows that he can't get away, trapped, so he turns around and surrenders himself. The cop unloads from a distance anyway.

Was it cleared up whether or not he was shot in the back at all?
 
I'd like to think that cops are trained to shoot low to immobilize aggressors without killing them. I guess when a black kid's charging you all bets are off?

This always pops up, but no, patrol officers are trained to aim for center mass and to keep firing until the target hits the ground.

I thought they were trained to kill in armed situations i.e. subject is armed.

Lethal force is lethal force. If it is justified vs an unarmed target it is applied the same way as it would be to an armed target.
 
The guy who did the fucking autopsy said it didn't provide enough information to reconstruct the shooting, but the posters in this thread think they can do it based on the NYT article about the autopsy.

Whatever. Write whatever story feeds your outrage the most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom