Support NeoGAF

[CrimsonCommie]

Maybe somebody should make a thread for yesterday's shooting.

 

[slit]

From ABC:

"The Ferguson police officer who shot and killed an unarmed teenager suffered 'a serious facial injury' in the altercation before firing the fatal shots, according to a source close to the officer who spoke to ABC News today....The hospital photo of the office's [sic] facial injury is expected to be shown to the grand jury, the source said."

It will be interesting to find out who this "source" is as well as if there is any credibility to this claim. If what is being reported is true, this bit of evidence could be the determining factor on whether the grand jury goes forward with the indictment.

Yeah but even if that's true, witnesses have already confirmed there was some sort of scuffle at the police car before Brown was being chased. It could have happened then, before Brown tried to surrender so that wouldn't matter. Although I'm sure Fox News will have a field day with that.

 

[Jaeger]

Should have at least tried a taser before killing him. Or just stay out of his way until more officers arrive. You don't have to kill him if he is walking towards you. Try talking to him? Killing him should be a last resort.

According to these incredibly reasonable people, kill first, handcuff dead body later.

 

[Trouble]

I see, my bad. What does neutralized mean though? If theres a danger they might get up again can you keep shooting them? Do cops ever get punished for firing too many shots?

Generally would mean they don't pose an immediate threat to others. I don't think police get punished for firing too many shots often, if at all.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Should have at least tried a taser before killing him. Or just stay out of his way until more officers arrive. You don't have to kill him if he is walking towards you. Try talking to him? Killing him should be a last resort.

Not for American police. And you can see why, with multiple people in this thread equating "neutralizing a threat" with what's seen in that video. Why shoot once or twice middle-mass and see if he falls and drops the knife, when you can shoot 10 times, 3 times when he's on the ground already, and get off scott-free claiming self-defense?

 

[Jmanunknown]

I see, my bad. What does neutralized mean though? If theres a danger they might get up again can you keep shooting them? Do cops ever get punished for firing too many shots?

I do not think so. In miami cops shot at two unarmed suspects who were apparently trying to surrender 377 times. I do not think anyone got punished.

here is the story http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/police-shooting-frenzy-raises-concerns/

 

[Indicate]

Revolutionary Communist Party @ oakland

 

[Eric WK]

Yeah but even if that's true, witnesses have already confirmed there was some sort of scuffle at the police car before Brown was being chased. It could have happened then before Brown tried to surrender so that wouldn't matter. Although I'm sure Fox News will have a field day with that.

There's also no way other than forensic evidence from Brown's hands found during the autopsy to prove that it was Brown who caused an injury. I wouldn't put it past Ferguson PD to manufacture (physically) that story after the fact.

 

[CountBlack]

Oh hey that cop that beat the shit out of that lady on the side of the road might actually have to own up to his actions

 

[jamesinclair]

I do not think so. In miami cops shot at two unarmed suspects who were apparently trying to surrender 377 times. I do not think anyone got punished.

here is the story http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/police-shooting-frenzy-raises-concerns/

Remember LAPD shooting like 100 times into a car with two innocent old ladies.....because they thought it was Donner, even though the car didnt match the description in any shape or form?

Yeah, they got no punishment.

 

[Jaeger]

Oh hey that cop that beat the shit out of that lady on the side of the road might actually have to own up to his actions

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Oh hey that cop that beat the shit out of that lady on the side of the road might actually have to own up to his actions

City will settle, he will likely be quietly terminated, won't serve a day for assault.

 

[BronsonLee]

Remember LAPD shooting like 100 times into a car with two innocent old ladies.....because they thought it was Donner, even though the car didnt match the description in any shape or form?

Yeah, they got no punishment.

Yeah, that was some fucking nonsense. That Donner thing really did show how fucked up the LAPD is.

 

[benjipwns]

From ABC:

"The Ferguson police officer who shot and killed an unarmed teenager suffered 'a serious facial injury' in the altercation before firing the fatal shots, according to a source close to the officer who spoke to ABC News today....The hospital photo of the office's [sic] facial injury is expected to be shown to the grand jury, the source said."

It will be interesting to find out who this "source" is as well as if there is any credibility to this claim. If what is being reported is true, this bit of evidence could be the determining factor on whether the grand jury goes forward with the indictment.

The source is someone high up in the police department:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/2...en-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

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.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

It seems likely that most instances involving knives and police in the US also do not end in deaths. This comparison of Europeans do it right and Americans do it wrong ignores a lot of context.

Not if the context of the comparison is about the situations where it does result in death and whether that death could have been prevented. Most police encounters end without incident, the fact that violent encounters are a smaller percentage of a much larger number doesn't make that number meaningless. If we're exploring the subset of incidents where death results, we're not particularly interested in the inverse unless we're curious about incident rates (which I would agree is still relevant but likely unknown, although I would be quite sure Europe would be far ahead).

The comparisons to European police comes because many posters seem to suggest that the very notion of resolving a situation involving a knife peacefully is too much to ask of police. In which case, both the comparison abroad and your point show very clearly that it is not. Which leads back into the discussion about this being a preventable death.

Reposting not because I'm vain, but because I don't want Kharvey to think I ignored the question since it was the 2nd to last post on last page or whatever.

 

[BronsonLee]

The source is someone high up in the police department:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/2...en-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

It's the chief! Watch it be goddamn Chief Wiggum again

 

[Gonzalez]

Revolutionary Community Party @ oakland

???

 

[Chie Satonaka]

"High up in the department", eh?

Interesting that these injuries are so damning, that it's been almost two weeks and we still haven't seen them.

Unless a video materializes from somewhere, this asshole is going to walk.

 

[Sulik2]

Oh boy I am mike brown just reported they started arresting people at the family dollar.

 

[Nabs]

justified agitator ‏@Awkward_Duck 1m
Police arrest a young man (teen, I think) for walking through a staged media area. #Ferguson

 

[CrimsonCommie]

Doesn't the autopsy show that he didn't hit him though?

 

[KHarvey16]

Not if the context of the comparison is about the situations where it does result in death and whether that death could have been prevented. Most police encounters end without incident, the fact that violent encounters are a smaller percentage of a much larger number doesn't make that number meaningless. If we're exploring the subset of incidents where death results, we're not particularly interested in the inverse unless we're curious about incident rates (which I would agree is relevant but likely unknown).

The comparisons to European police comes because many posters seem to suggest that the very notion of resolving a situation involving a knife peacefully is too much to ask of police. In which case, both the comparison abroad and your point show very clearly that it is not. Which leads back into the discussion about this being a preventable death.

I think it's important to discuss the idea that just because a preferable resolution exists does not mean it is the only justifiable resolution. I agree, it is preferable that no one is ever killed by police and suspects are arrested. However, despite no death being preferred, deadly force and any resultant death can still be legally and morally justified.

Personally I'm not willing to say a police officer, in such a context, should be legally obligated to pursue the best case, preferable resolution if it puts themselves and/or civilians in more danger. In other words I wouldn't trade the safety of a man or woman with a knife threatening people for the safety of a man or woman acting as police (or of the civilians nearby). Consider this scenario:

An officer is called to a scene of a man with a knife threatening people. He is by far the closest and will respond and be on scene minutes before anyone else. He has a taser and a firearm. He approaches the man with the knife, and when he gets to within 30 feet the man heads towards him at a slow pace and refuses to stop or drop the weapon. The officer can now choose to grab his taser or his gun. Obviously the taser is the least harmful to the assailant and the most dangerous to the officer. The gun is exactly the reverse. Who should get to decide which option he must pick?

It would be awesome if the cop decided to use the taser and it all worked out for everyone. But if he grabs his gun, is it right to say he's done something wrong?

 

[Indicate]

???

typed too fast. Revolutionary Communist Party are present in the Oakland protest.

 

[BronsonLee]

"High up in the department", eh?

Interesting that these injuries are so damning, that it's been almost two weeks and we still haven't seen them.

Unless a video materializes from somewhere, this asshole is going to walk.

Why? It's in the prosecutor's hands now, not the police department's. They don't matter right now.

 

[Reaganomics]

The source is someone high up in the police department:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/2...en-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

Does it feel like that they're releasing new information every few days that wasn't anywhere apparent in the first few days of the incident?

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Doesn't the autopsy show that he didn't hit him though?

They said there were no signs of a struggle.

 

[benjipwns]

Does it feel like that they're releasing new information every few days that wasn't anywhere apparent in the first few days of the incident?

The police do this as they continue their investigation and uncover new evidence like a broken eye socket and such.

 

[CrimsonCommie]

They said there were no signs of a struggle.

That's what I thought. I would think that if the injuries were as serious as this source keeps claiming that there would be some kind of scrapes and bruises but I don't know I'm not an expert

 

[Punchy4486]

It's the chief! Watch it be goddamn Chief Wiggum again

Bake 'em away, toys.

 

[benjipwns]

Look, if the police had simply released a photo of the officers injuries and gave his side of the story in the early days instead of waiting until people protested then they wouldn't have had all this fun.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Punching someone that hard in the face he would at least have the officers DNA on his hand. Not sure if the family autopsy could test for that.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Why? It's in the prosecutor's hands now, not the police department's. They don't matter right now.

They're justifying the murder based on the fact that Brown apparently beat the shit out of him.

If that was the case, I'd imagine that would at the evry least play into the narritive that they want to potray him as a violent superhuman thug. I'd think they'd want that out there immediately.

I'm just saying it's interesting that we haven't seen or heard very much about these injuries so far.

Edit:

They said there were no signs of a struggle.

Also, this.

 

[akira28]

know what else causes a good orbital fracture? getting smacked in the face with a police flashlight in the patrolman's locker room.

Yeah, that was some fucking nonsense. That Donner thing really did show how fucked up the LAPD is.

Immediately forgotten though since people will still trip all over themselves to defend the LAPD, apparently.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

This guy on CNN is such a dick bag. Saying people should start arming themselves because of these scary gangsters and protesters.

 

[More_Badass]

They said there were no signs of a struggle.

Would "signs of a struggle" be the same as signs of an assault? I'm trying to understand if it's just the way it's worded.

 

[FamousLastX]

This guy on CNN is such a dick bag. Saying people should start arming themselves because of these scary gangsters and protesters.

Yeah, I cringe everytime I see them bring him on to weigh in on the situation.

 

[antonz]

Officer Wilson must have amazing healing powers to be beaten so badly have fractured bones in his skull etc. and still stand around bullshitting with another cop before he ran off and never filed a report.

Even more impressive after such a horrible beating to be out mowing his front yard until he was told its time to leave town.

Even more amazing a police"source" suddenly talks to all the media repeating all these details that first surfaced off some bigoted blog the day before

 

[Effect]

Punching someone that hard in the face he would at least have the officers DNA on his hand. Not sure if the family autopsy could test for that.

This is what I don't understand. If if you are putting that much effort to punch someone, in the face, wouldn't the result of that start appearing within minutes? If not right away if skin was broken. Wouldn't he be bleeding the eye? There is video footage of the cop after the shooting.

 

[benjipwns]

This guy on CNN is such a dick bag. Saying people should start arming themselves because of these scary gangsters and protesters.

CNN has great programming:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/racism-i...-marc-lamont-hill-shout-at-each-other-on-cnn/

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I think it's important to discuss the idea that just because a preferable resolution exists does not mean it is the only justifiable resolution. I agree, it is preferable that no one is ever killed by police and suspects are arrested. However, despite no death being preferred, deadly force and any resultant death can still be legally and morally justified.

Agreed.

Personally I'm not willing to say a police officer, in such a context, should be legally obligated to pursue the best case, preferable resolution if it puts themselves and/or civilians in more danger. In other words I wouldn't trade the safety of a man or woman with a knife threatening people for the safety of a man or woman acting as police (or of the civilians nearby). Consider this scenario:

Agreed, assuming I have the same definition for the bolded as you do. Specifically, I would define danger as having to be a real, immediate, and reasonably supported threat of physical harm to yourself or others, or something to that effect.

An officer is called to a scene of a man with a knife threatening people. He is by far the closest and will respond and be on scene minutes before anyone else. He has a taser and a firearm. He approaches the man with the knife, and when he gets to within 30 feet the man heads towards him at a slow pace and refuses to stop or drop the weapon. The officer can now choose to grab his taser or his gun. Obviously the taser is the least harmful to the assailant and the most dangerous to the officer. The gun is exactly the reverse. Who should get to decide which option he must pick?

It would be awesome if the cop decided to use the taser and it all worked out for everyone. But if he grabs his gun, is it right to say he's done something wrong?

I think this is slightly disingenuous when we have an actual example that we're discussing. That said, it completely depends on the specific factual context and hypotheticals lack the kind of depth we want. What is a "slow pace", what is the terrain like in between the officer and the man, what is the man's build, does the officer have a reasonable means to back himself and others away while waiting for further backup or support, when the officer was called to the scene was he informed as to what witnesses may have seen or heard (was the man threatening to harm, talking gibberish, coming out of a robbery?), etc, etc. I would likely suggest the officer draw the gun so that he can be prepared to use deadly force if necessary. But the mere fact that a suspect has a knife and is moving merely creates the potential for a deadly threat. Without further action the officer should not shoot the man.

Furthermore, consider the fact that this exact same situation can occur in European countries where the officer does not even have the dichotomous choice you are trying to foist upon him because they do not carry guns. Somehow those European countries have found this scenario not disturbing enough to merit giving every cop a gun on patrol.

Turning to our actual shooting incident, the victim was clearly mentally ill and trying to get himself killed, was not brandishing the knife or making threatening movements. He was merely slowly walking on top of a ledge. That a suspect does not respond to a command to drop a knife or stop moving does not merit deadly force without further action. I saw no action or behavior prior to the officers shooting him that indicated he was about to change his movement to attack. Had he lunged or yelled something like "time to die", raised the knife or pointed it at officers, etc, it would be different. But there was no overt action constituting or furthering an intent to attack/kill, so the officers should not have fired upon him.

 

[TheAbsolution]

So the protests are calm tonight? Sorry,
I haven't been keeping up.
Anyone want to fill me in?

 

[BronsonLee]

Bake 'em away, toys.

*chows down on donut*

I'm just saying it's interesting that we haven't seen or heard very much about these injuries so far.

Ahhhh, jaja. It makes no sense. They're spoonfeeding this stuff, but it wouldn't surprise me if the truth is somewhere in the middle. However, unlike the Martin case, there's no signs of a struggle on Brown, so they're going to need to explain how Wilson got the injuries without Brown doing anything to him.

know what else causes a good orbital fracture? getting smacked in the face with a police flashlight in the patrolman's locker room.

Immediately forgotten though since people will still trip all over themselves to defend the LAPD, apparently.

Hmmm..and he didn't write his report, left the scene, etc... hrmhrm.

And ya wtf, who would defend the LAPD

 

[ryutaro's mama]

So the protests are calm tonight? Sorry,
I haven't been keeping up.
Anyone want to fill me in?

They were calm last night. Didn't stop the police from rubber bulletin' and tear gassing.

-_________-

 

[Reaganomics]

The police do this as they continue their investigation and uncover new evidence like a broken eye socket and such.

I understand that but if what they're saying is true, why wasn't any news of him being punched circulating within the first few hours or days of the entire incident?

 

[ninjapanda]

Just learned how to read again, and your post still reeks of defense in shooting a knife wielding man 10 times.

I do not get this impression at all.

The point Dead man is trying to iterate is that the police should not put themselves in a situation where they have to disarm a knife wielding individual in close quarters. The situation would be too fluid to predict and pose an unnessary risk of harm to the officer.

Instead other methods should be employed will allow the officer to stay out of harms way while allowing the situation to be defused without the loss of life.

There is nothing at all in his posts that imply that he is defending the overzealous act of shooting a knife wielding man 10 tens.

 

[user8503492]

Anyone see the crazy white lady get saved by the cops lol

Yeah, real smart to show up with a "I support Wilson" sign or some shit..

 

[MHWilliams]

City will settle, he will likely be quietly terminated, won't serve a day for assault.

Man, that's better than nothing. At least he won't be a cop anymore. Like, that's the bare minimum people are asking for, to not let bad cops have the chance to continue being bad cops.

 

[Yrael]

Even more amazing a police"source" suddenly talks to all the media repeating all these details that first surfaced off some bigoted blog the day before

Not to mention that source even had an accompanying picture as "proof" - that apparently turned out to have originated from 2007?

 

[KHarvey16]

I think this is slightly disingenuous when we have an actual example that we're discussing. That said, it completely depends on the specific factual context and hypotheticals lack the kind of depth we want. What is a "slow pace", what is the terrain like in between the officer and the man, what is the man's build, does the officer have a reasonable means to back himself and others away while waiting for further backup or support, when the officer was called to the scene was he informed as to what witnesses may have seen or heard (was the man threatening to harm, talking gibberish, coming out of a robbery?), etc, etc. I would likely suggest the officer draw the gun so that he can be prepared to use deadly force if necessary. But the mere fact that a suspect has a knife and is moving merely creates the potential for a deadly threat. Without further action the officer should not shoot the man.

Agreed on all of that, and I think those details may account for why most such incidents end up with no one dead, yet a lesser number do.

Furthermore, consider the fact that this exact same situation can occur in European countries where the officer does not even have the dichotomous choice you are trying to foist upon him because they do not carry guns. Somehow those European countries have found this scenario not disturbing enough to merit giving every cop a gun on patrol.

Perhaps because it isn't something they face often enough to make it worthwhile.

Turning to our actual shooting incident, the victim was clearly mentally ill and trying to get himself killed, was not brandishing the knife or making threatening movements. He was merely slowly walking on top of a ledge. That a suspect does not respond to a command to drop a knife or stop moving does not merit deadly force without further action. I saw no action or behavior prior to the officers shooting him that indicated he was about to change his movement to attack. Had he lunged or yelled something like "time to die", raised the knife or pointed it at officers, etc, it would be different. But there was no overt action constituting or furthering an intent to attack/kill, so the officers should not have fired upon him.

He is yelling for them to shoot him and he is very clearly advancing toward the officer on the left. He's headed directly to him. I think making it clear he intends to present enough of a threat to justify being shot combined with him advancing and not responding makes this a clear case of a justified use of deadly force. It's also relevant to the equation here that there are civilians in the area and no other police.

 

[victreeb3l]

Man that Killer Mike interview on CNN was some great stuff. Dude is awesome.