Ferguson

[Berzerker]

I have already indicated that I was being facetious when I said that.

all of it or just the part about wishing the victims of crimes committed by cops a quick death for resisting?

That would be correct. Though, I would indicate that I started this whole discussion in the context of cases where individuals refuse police orders and resist arrest, not those extremely rare cases where the police beat on someone for no reason whatever.

Here is the context I was asking about

I will submit an acknowledgement that cases do occur wherein an officer exceeds his authority, abuses his power, and/or commits some other travesty, but they are a minute fraction of the lot. Furthermore, even in those cases, it typically does not end in death or dismemberment, because most people are smart enough not to resist. For those that do, I have no sympathy and zero tolerance.

I dont mean to be a nuisance, but thats still incredible

Brown's body did fall forward despite being shot in the upper area of the body. If he had been standing straight up, it would have knocked him backwards. Since he fell forward, his body would have to be in a forward position similar to that of someone sprinting forward.

good point

 

[JohnRM]

This is disgusting.



Several of the people in the video are being beaten up after obviously being pacified or obviously not fighting back in any way. And again, there are police pointing their guns at some guy with a camera. He is obviously terrified and his reactions could be anything as long as they stand this way. So they should not do that. It is poor aggression control and poor policing and I hope it is not representative for how American police operates.

EDIT: There are people running out to beat up some guy who was just in a car accident.

There are police holding a girl standing still who then choose to use pepper spray or whatever in her eyes.

Others tackle some girl nearby a wall.

This is the first three incidents of the video.

They are kicking people that are handcuffed.

They are punching a guy that is sitting down with his arms behind him. This incident shows 4+ police around him. He's sitting down and being punched.

I don't understand how you can react that way to that video.

EDIT: Going through the video case by case is insane. There's another car accident where the guy falls out of the car, 3+ police surround him with ready guns, and while he lies still with guns pointed at him, a policeman freaking runs up and stomps him on his head.

Didn't even bother watching it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is disgusting.



Several of the people in the video are being beaten up after obviously being pacified or obviously not fighting back in any way. And again, there are police pointing their guns at some guy with a camera. He is obviously terrified and his reactions could be anything as long as they stand this way. So they should not do that. It is poor aggression control and poor policing and I hope it is not representative for how American police operates.

EDIT: There are people running out to beat up some guy who was just in a car accident.

There are police holding a girl standing still who then choose to use pepper spray or whatever in her eyes.

Others tackle some girl nearby a wall.

This is the first three incidents of the video.

They are kicking people that are handcuffed.

They are punching a guy that is sitting down with his arms behind him. This incident shows 4+ police around him. He's sitting down and being punched.

I don't understand how you can react that way to that video.

EDIT: Going through the video case by case is insane. There's another car accident where the guy falls out of the car, 3+ police surround him with ready guns, and while he lies still with guns pointed at him, a policeman freaking runs up and stomps him on his head.

Unfortunately, yes it is a pretty good representation, though of course showing incident after incident like that all on one little screen adds impact. You would probably have to take the whole country over a period of days to get that. Of course you also have to consider that that was just incidents that happened to be recorded. Most aren't.

As to the car accidents, those are the end of police chases and the 'accident' probably involved the cops running the car off the road in the first place. Once there is a good car crashing out of control to account for injuries though it does provide a certain opportunity for law enforcement.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Brown's body did fall forward despite being shot in the upper area of the body. If he had been standing straight up, it would have knocked him backwards. Since he fell forward, his body would have to be in a forward position similar to that of someone sprinting forward.

I thought we went over this in the JFK threads. A small bullet is not going to push someone's head, let alone their body backwards from hitting it. He would fall wherever he was leaning, and if he was perfectly straight up he would fall in a random direction (whatever way the wind blows is one way to say it) or slump over/drop straight down. There have also been studies suggesting the head will reflex towards the direction of the impact, but I can't recall all the details such as if that is only shots to specific areas of the head.

But in this case we aren't looking for the 'back and to the left' head movement on an average man (slightly below average?), but the whole body mass of a rather large individual.

 

[Senethro]

Especially two pistol rounds that fully exit the arm.

Also noone has satisfactorily explained why Brown ran away from the guy with the gun, then ran towards the guy with the gun neither of which were smart actions. The really strange bit is how he died and then ran 140 away from Wilsons car.

 

[Angst]

Didn't even bother watching it.

Well, your opinion about it isn't worth much then, is it?

Unfortunately, yes it is a pretty good representation, though of course showing incident after incident like that all on one little screen adds impact. You would probably have to take the whole country over a period of days to get that. Of course you also have to consider that that was just incidents that happened to be recorded. Most aren't.

As to the car accidents, those are the end of police chases and the 'accident' probably involved the cops running the car off the road in the first place. Once there is a good car crashing out of control to account for injuries though it does provide a certain opportunity for law enforcement.

This is depressing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is depressing.

You should see it from here.

 

[MobBoss]

I thought we went over this in the JFK threads. A small bullet is not going to push someone's head, let alone their body backwards from hitting it. He would fall wherever he was leaning, and if he was perfectly straight up he would fall in a random direction (whatever way the wind blows is one way to say it) or slump over/drop straight down. There have also been studies suggesting the head will reflex towards the direction of the impact, but I can't recall all the details such as if that is only shots to specific areas of the head.

But in this case we aren't looking for the 'back and to the left' head movement on an average man (slightly below average?), but the whole body mass of a rather large individual.

Couple of things. The effect you are referring to occurs with a high-velocity rifle bullet where the exit wound explodes and rocks the head forward into the direction of the shot.

But this wasn't from a rifle (the one that killed Kennedy was .268 caliber). It's from a pistol (.40 caliber). using a larger, much slower round than a rifle bullet, often not exiting the body at all, but transferring all its power to the point of impact instead of blowing through the target. The .40 round uses only about 1/4 of the energy the rifle bullet would.

What you are referring to is accurate, but only for the ballistics of a rifle bullet...not a larger caliber pistol.

 

[Commodore]

Do you know that 'street without specific address' is the standard descriptor police use literally every time they talk about any suspect in any press release? It is the accepted standard way that every other 'neighbor named Wilson' in StLouis county is protected from having to explain that they aren't that Wilson. The NYTimes has 'done to' Officer Wilson exactly what is 'done to' every person accused of a crime who is not a police officer, everywhere. Had the county prosecutor done the same there would be far less of a problem in StLouis county.

So two wrongs make a right? Do you think absolutely nothing should happen to the owners of the NYT if Wilson ends up dead or his house gets burned down? The fact that you are apparently okay with this and don't think this was an irresponsible action by the NYT really shows just how much you want Wilson to suffer some sort of 'punishment'.

And it is also the prosecutor's or police's prerogative to release information on a suspect to the public. The media, however does not and should not have any such authority and should be held financially and criminally responsible for anything that happens as a result of what they report.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Especially two pistol rounds that fully exit the arm.

Also noone has satisfactorily explained why Brown ran away from the guy with the gun, then ran towards the guy with the gun neither of which were smart actions. The really strange bit is how he died and then ran 140 away from Wilsons car.

Wasnt the brightest guy, having carried out a theft, in plain sight, and captured on CCTV. Then he walked in the middle of the road.
He running could be explained by trying to avoid being arrest for theft, and then made it much worse by assaulting a police officer. (No fractured eyeball through)

Drugs ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So two wrongs make a right? Do you think absolutely nothing should happen to the owners of the NYT if Wilson ends up dead or his house gets burned down? The fact that you are apparently okay with this and don't think this was an irresponsible action by the NYT really shows just how much you want Wilson to suffer some sort of 'punishment'.

And it is also the prosecutor's or police's prerogative to release information on a suspect to the public. The media, however does not and should not have any such authority and should be held financially and criminally responsible for anything that happens as a result of what they report.

I didn't say it was right. I said it was standard procedure. I also gave a reason for it which has been used to justify it for decades. By giving 'of blah blah street in blah blah town' it prevents everyone of the same or similar name from having to deflect blow back, which is seen as a net positive.

It's public record, not 'the police's prerogative'...and even if it was their prerogative, we get right back to what is it about the accused in this case that sets him above the treatment everyone else gets? I know the answer is blazingly obvious, but the fact that so many people think that that answer is acceptable is in fact the problem.

Do you want to see "[your name here] sex crimes case dropped, sheep witnesses discredited at grand jury hearing" in the paper? Of course not. But no one is going to break an arm protecting you from it. No one is going to keep you out of the police blotter section of the local paper no matter what you did or didn't do. Or me. Or the next guy...unless it is a cop.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Couple of things. The effect you are referring to occurs with a high-velocity rifle bullet where the exit wound explodes and rocks the head forward into the direction of the shot.

But this wasn't from a rifle (the one that killed Kennedy was .268 caliber). It's from a pistol (.40 caliber). using a larger, much slower round than a rifle bullet, often not exiting the body at all, but transferring all its power to the point of impact instead of blowing through the target. The .40 round uses only about 1/4 of the energy the rifle bullet would.

What you are referring to is accurate, but only for the ballistics of a rifle bullet...not a larger caliber pistol.

okay, I may be wrong about the head shot, but knocking someone backwards with a pistol still seems a myth, and mythbusters did a couple episodes on it.

And:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRRJZ6rJBY&feature=related

You would think even if the armor stopped the bullet from penetrating, it wouldn't absorb the force of knocking him over.

 

[James Stuart]

Well, only if he doesn't feel all the information is relevent.

If he doesn't give all the information then don't you think he will be accused of hiding information by the public? In the general area of Ferguson.

IMO it was a smart move. He did give the prosecution's case with the reasons for deciding which information (witnesses) was correct.

I'm sure he'd be accused of bias one way or the other regardless of what he did. That's not the issue. The issue is that he isn't supposed to show all the evidence, just the evidence that supports the prosecution case. He'd be in far less strife if he'd done his damn job, and the grand jury had still decided not to indict, which is always possible, albeit rare. He'd also be in less strife if the grand jury indicted, he went to trial, and there was a not guilty verdict. This way, he has essentially admitted that he tried to throw the case, which is unethical, and almost certainly illegal.

Wow, that was incredibly informative and I feel like I now know a lot more about what's going on. Thanks!!

In regards to what the prosecutor did - from what I've read he basically did what most prosecutors in grand juries do when a cop is the one accused - they treat him differently. So is the problem with this particular prosecutor, or with all prosecutors in the country?

My follow up question is this: If this had gone to trial, it doesn't seem to me that the cop would have been found guilty of anything. It seems like a clear case of a police officer doing his job to me.

So say that this grand jury thing turned out differently - and he was indicted. And it went to trial.. Do people expect him to have been found guilty there? It doesn't seem very likely to me, given what we know about the case! So is it possible that this prosecutor, in this case, did what he did because he knew that? And is it possible that this cop was thrown into a grand jury due to public pressure? Because it seems to me that most cases presented there are very solid cases that the prosecution expects to win.

You're welcome. As I said, luiz was correct, but since I had to educate myself on the process virtually from scratch - I did know a little bit from American television, but it's more the sort of stuff that you realise after the fact, than stuff I actually knew going in. When I was researching grand juries on Wiki and elsehwere this week, I had more than one moment of; "oh, so that's what that meant on that episode of L&O" - I had a bit more of an insight on how to explain it completely from scratch to a fellow ignoramus.

It seems that this is relatively common amongst all prosecutors in the US, but it isn't universal. So the problem is with this particular prosecutor, and others like him, who violate their oath, rather than with the system nationwide. Or, to put it more accurately, the issue is with the system in practice, rather than the system in theory.

I think most people who are looking at this objectively - which is, admittedly, not many on either side; you and I, and luiz and a few others, may have the advantage of not being American or raised in its system, and therefore not having already picked a side in this issue in childhood - believe Wilson was innocent, that Brown attacked him, and that the officer acted in self-defence. So he would almost certainly have been found not guilty if it went to trial. Which is why it's even more surprising that the prosecutor would risk his job - and his life, given the violence - just to continue his unbroken streak of not bothering to pursue cops for possible crimes.

I think the prosecutor did this because he is corrupt and does not wish to charge police officers with crimes, ever. The evidence - he has a very, very good record of convictions, and a better one for indictments, but is somehow 0-5 for indicting police officers - indicates that the prosecutor throws all cases involving a possible police crime. This case is only different due to the national media coverage, which would have inspired a smarter man to do his job properly. He has cleverly confused people who don't understand the grand jury system into thinking he did his job, however, by claiming that he was "putting all the evidence on the table." That sounds like it's a stand-up act, unless you know that that is almost literally the opposite of what he is supposed to do before the grand jury.

And the media attention is absolutely the reason this went to the grand jury. The police were trying to not even bother to investigate, and there are apparently some problems with some of the evidence due to the police not investigating it immediately.

See, that's actually what I don't get. I don't get why American police use so much force in controlling crime. It seems way overboard, and a simple educational course as part of police training (control of civic aggression or something) would perhaps be the very solution to this violence.

Some evidence in Australia would seem to indicate that this is correct. Recently the Queensland state government halved the yearly training sessions for police in using firearms in self-defence - it was either from 4 to 2, or from 2 to 1, I don't recall - and the result has been more police shootings in QLD this year than in the whole of Australia in an average year. There have been three fatal shootings this week, prompting even the notoriously corrupt QLD police to launch an investigation.

I suspect they will find in favour of all the officers involved - and it looks like the incidents were self-defence, though that relies on potentially uninformed or biased media coverage - but recommend reintroducing the old training regime, and a stronger emphasis on tasers. Part of the reason tasers have been sidelined is due to an incident last year where a drug-affected individual shrugged off several taser hits and stabbed an officer.

That is the price we pay for an orderly society. If you prefer the alternative, feel free to relocate to Somalia.

Hang on, innocent deaths at the hands of thugs in uniform are the price we pay for orderly society? That is almost the exact excuse Goering used to disregard civilian deaths during the Night of the Long Knives.

That is not quite what I am saying. If you are innocent or the cops are overstepping in some way, it is not wise, nor should it be encouraged, for a person to resist arrest or assault an officer. Accept what is happening and pursue your legal and respectable avenues of redressing the matter. There a myriad of rights groups waiting to take up your cause, whatever the case may be. It doesn't even had to be credible in any way.

Or you can resist with force and face a beating or death. The choice is yours, but particularly if the abuse of power is that of force to begin with, what makes you think that resisting won't simply escalate and that a beating won't turn into a shooting? I understand that it is hard to think these things through in the moment, but it is incumbent upon those who are likely to suffer the consequences to protect themselves from possible harm. If you are waiting for the system to be perfectly fair and reasonable...you can wish in one hand and crap in the other. See which one fills up first.

This sounds all fair and good; until, despite you obeying all instructions, a cop starts stomping on the back of your head, or they pull a gun on you and start yelling, or they drop their knee into the back of your neck while you're handcuffed on the ground. These are all things I have seen on Cops, by the way, which means they are apparently considered acceptable behaviour from American police officers, or they wouldn't do it with television cameras to hand.

Most people, when treated this way, will instinctively resist, if only because your body tends to turn and lift slightly if someone puts a knee in certain positions. You can take my word on that, I have jiujitsu and judo training, and there are some positions a person can put their foot or knee that cause your body to reflexively jerk in certain ways. According to what you have stated, this 'resistance' gives the police an excuse to beat on you, and if you attempt to defend yourself - and most people who feel like they are being beaten to death will defend themselves - then the cop has the right to shoot you dead.

That, gentleman, is a police state, and it is something your entire American Constitution, legal system, and way of life was set up by your Founding Fathers to avoid.

Just giving up and accepting oppression is not American. Let alone is being the tyrant.

Exactly. Even moreso than most societies, American society was founded on the predication that freedo trumps security, and that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the state. To abandon those principles is to abandon the very fabric of American society.

I'm white and I'd beat six months by a country mile.

Just sayin'.

Dude, we get it, you're so edgy. You're not the only person in the thread who has had unfortunate run-ins with the police, and your personal issues with them have nothing to do with the underlying issue. So stop bringing them up.

Didn't even bother watching it.

I wonder if you'll bother reading this?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Dude, we get it, you're so edgy. You're not the only person in the thread who has had unfortunate run-ins with the police, and your personal issues with them have nothing to do with the underlying issue. So stop bringing them up.

Sorry. It's a constant fight. If people can successfully turn this into 'just a black thing' the battle is immediately lost, because 40% of the white population will immediately say 'so it is okay that the system is broken this way because it gets good results'. So yeah, I do point out constantly that as a white person I am just as subject to the broken system as any black person, so white people should be concerned. Truthfully, it irritates some of my black friends too, but they have mostly acknowledged that I'm right.

 

[Bugfatty300]

okay, I may be wrong about the head shot, but knocking someone backwards with a pistol still seems a myth, and mythbusters did a couple episodes on it.

And:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRRJZ6rJBY&feature=related

You would think even if the armor stopped the bullet from penetrating, it wouldn't absorb the force of knocking him over.

You're correct. Getting knocked back by a bullet is pure Hollywood.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're correct. Getting knocked back by a bullet is pure Hollywood.

Out of curiosity, is that still true of a shot to a vest? I wouldn't expect a bullet to knock back something it is penetrating, but it seems like just hitting and stopping could have an effect.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Out of curiosity, is that still true of a shot to a vest? I wouldn't expect a bullet to knock back something it is penetrating, but it seems like just hitting and stopping could have an effect.

Actually no. As per Newton's 3rd law, the person who fired the gun would also be knocked back as they're adsorbing most of the opposite energy as well. But if you've ever fired a centerfire rifle or handgun in the Navy then you know how the recoil is little more than a push or a punch sensation. It's roughly the same on the other end.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually no. As per Newton's 3rd law, the person who fired the gun would also be knocked back as they're adsorbing most of the opposite energy as well. But if you've ever fired a centerfire rifle or handgun in the Navy then you know how the recoil is little more than a push or a punch sensation. It's roughly the same on the other end.

Makes sense. The arm flex can absorb shock a little better than getting hit center mass, but I can see that it wouldn't be like taking a heavy punch or anything. Thanks.

 

[onejayhawk]

You're correct. Getting knocked back by a bullet is pure Hollywood.

Not exactly. The bullet has as much kick arriving as the recoil on the firearm. If you are not braced for it, it could knock you over. Long guns have higher velocity and heavier bullets. They can easily knock someone down.

The vest makes little difference. The physics is the same, but the bullet stops in a shorter distance, ie more of a hit and less of a push.

J

 

[warpus]

Sorry. It's a constant fight. If people can successfully turn this into 'just a black thing' the battle is immediately lost, because 40% of the white population will immediately say 'so it is okay that the system is broken this way because it gets good results'. So yeah, I do point out constantly that as a white person I am just as subject to the broken system as any black person, so white people should be concerned. Truthfully, it irritates some of my black friends too, but they have mostly acknowledged that I'm right.

Be careful that your black friends never find out about white privilege.