Ferguson

[Colonel]

Ron Johnson did a fine job calming things down.

Yes cops were mad about his apology.

One time he said at a press conference that some of his men wouldn't look him in the face anymore because he ordered them to stand down 1 night rather than confront the looters.

But night after night after night, he was out there in the thick of it and did live interviews with CNN at 1AM every single time.
The media were not friendly and he aced them all.
That is a pretty rare talent!

Now take a step back and look at the results.
Did his apology really ruin the reputation of the Missouri Highway Patrol?
Do many people even remember it?
Or do people remember he stepped in when nothing else was working and calmed things down?

He got the job done without a bloodbath and deserves congratulations.
The situation was impossible with all the lies being throw around.

He did a fine job de-escalating the situation, ignoring the fact that the worst nights of riots were after he took over. Your pretty picture of peaceful protesters on MSNBC is utter garbage, they've still got isolated pockets of riots that they have to deal with in the area.

 

[MobBoss]

Nope. Running away is not a "violent crime." The Supreme Court outlawed the "fleeing felony rule" in Garner vs. Tennessee. Wilson's firing at Brown while Brown was running away was a felonious assault, giving Brown the right to defend himself.

BTW: I did an experiment last night. I'm an old, fat, out-of-shape guy. I ran 9 meters in three seconds. 9 meters is almost 30 feet. This is the approximate distance which Officer Wilson claims Mike Brown ran at him. (According to Wilson, Brown started 30 feet away, charged while Wilson backpedaled, and died 8 feet away. I figure, Wilson couldn't have backpedaled more than about 8 feet or he wouldn't have been steady enough to have hit Brown 6 times with 10 shots.)

The audio recording of the shots fired by Wilson reveal a flurry of shots, a three-second gap, and another flurry of shots. Thus, Wilson's story must be false. He needed more than three seconds to fire a fusillade of shots, pause for three seconds, and then fire another fusillade of shots.

No, you're wrong. it takes less than a second or so to fire 4 shots with a semi-automatic pistol. Its more bang-bang-bang-bang as fast as you can twitch a finger; not bang-pause-bang-pause-bang-pause-bang.

Cops are trained to fire like that in those situations where most people aren't. They are also trained to be able to fire while walking forward or backward at a steady pace while keeping on target.

Let me guess, you don't have a lot of experience in firearms do you?

 

[uppi]

No, you're wrong. it takes less than a second or so to fire 4 shots with a semi-automatic pistol. Its more bang-bang-bang-bang as fast as you can twitch a finger; not bang-pause-bang-pause-bang-pause-bang.

Sure, you can shoot that often. But with any decent-sized caliber there is no point in doing so, because shots 2-4 will hit anything but the target. If American police is indeed trained that way, it is another example how bad that training is.

At least that explains why they always unleash a storm of bullets when one or two would suffice. I guess if you don't aim at all and rely on the statistics of your bullet spread, you need to be quite trigger happy to hit anything at all.

 

[Colonel]

Sure, you can shoot that often. But with any decent-sized caliber there is no point in doing so, because shots 2-4 will hit anything but the target. If American police is indeed trained that way, it is another example how bad that training is.

At least that explains why they always unleash a storm of bullets when one or two would suffice. I guess if you don't aim at all and rely on the statistics of your bullet spread, you need to be quite trigger happy to hit anything at all.

Um? Do you know anything about firearms at all? I can fire a number of weapons while moving in rapid succession while maintaining accuracy. Its what my training has taught me.

 

[Kaitzilla]

There appears to be some anger between the NYC cops and the mayor.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/

The two officers were pronounced dead at Woodhull Hospital, where their colleagues and family members huddled tearfully.

City Council President Melissa Mark-Viverito and Mayor Bill de Blasio were less than welcome guests at the poignant gathering.

“We’re all in this together,” the mayor told grieving cops, according to a cop who was there.

“No we’re not,” one officer said tersely in response.

Just last week cops began signing a “Don’t Insult My Sacrifice” waiver, distributed by the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, that warned the mayor and speaker to stay away from funerals of cops killed in the line of duty.

Some of the history that led to the frosty relations:
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/12/the-cops-vs-the-mayor-bill-de-blasios-big-headache/383943/

Progressive urban leaders around the country, facing their own questions about policing tactics, will surely be watching to see how the nation’s most prominent liberal mayor handles this very uncomfortable situation.

Possible disrespect:

Link to video.


Some more
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...rn-backs-de-blasio-hospital-article-1.2052215

A startling video shows a hallway at Woodhull Hospital filled with cops silently facing away from de Blasio as he walks a blue gauntlet.

The demonstration, captured by WPIX11 News, included the presidents of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association and the the Sergeants Benevolent Association.

“Mayor de Blasio, the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands,” Ed Mullins, president of the sergeants association, said in a statement to his union members Saturday night.

“It is your failed policies and actions that enabled this tragedy to occur,” Mullins said. “I only hope and pray that more of these ambushes and executions do not happen again.”

Patrick Lynch, head of the patrol officers’ union, echoed Mullins’ anger at the mayor.

“That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor,” Lynch said in statement. “When these funerals are over, those responsible will be called on the carpet and held accountable.”

 

[Flying Pig]

Sure, you can shoot that often. But with any decent-sized caliber there is no point in doing so, because shots 2-4 will hit anything but the target. If American police is indeed trained that way, it is another example how bad that training is.

At least that explains why they always unleash a storm of bullets when one or two would suffice. I guess if you don't aim at all and rely on the statistics of your bullet spread, you need to be quite trigger happy to hit anything at all.

The storm of bullets is actually what you're supposed to do. The bullets in question are hollow-points, so they don't penetrate through the target, and if you're that close to them then you want to make sure that they're quickly and unambiguously dead - bearing in mind that adrenaline often makes people ignore injuries for a few seconds that subsequently kill them. If you shoot the chap with two bullets, there's a chance (especially if you're not shooting particularly accurately, because an enemy with a gun just popped up in front of you!) that he'll go down, fire off a shot, and then expire. Obviously you don't empty your rifle into the first person you see, because that leaves you in a sticky situation for the next one. At the very least, with a pistol you try to make two or three hits, at least one of which is to the head, so should be fatal on its own.

There was a Private Eye cover after an SAS unit killed 3 IRA men in Gibraltar showing one soldier being asked why he shot one man sixteen times, to which he responds 'because I ran out of bullets'. That anecdote has since passed into training as the right way to do it.

Um? Do you know anything about firearms at all? I can fire a number of weapons while moving in rapid succession while maintaining accuracy. Its what my training has taught me.

Air Force weapons don't count!

 

[Borachio]

No, you're wrong. it takes less than a second or so to fire 4 shots with a semi-automatic pistol. Its more bang-bang-bang-bang as fast as you can twitch a finger; not bang-pause-bang-pause-bang-pause-bang.

Cops are trained to fire like that in those situations where most people aren't. They are also trained to be able to fire while walking forward or backward at a steady pace while keeping on target.

Let me guess, you don't have a lot of experience in firearms do you?

Eh? I don't think you've read what Mr Scribbler wrote.

His claim, if I've understood correctly, is that a period of time for shooting, plus 3 seconds of no shooting, plus another period of time for shooting, must total more than 3 seconds.

This looks to be inescapably true to me.

Unless shooting a gun does really strange things to time itself. Maybe it does, for all I know. (My experience of firearms is confined to having stood next to someone discharging a shotgun at a pigeon once.) It would be a remarkable phenomenon, even so.

 

[Colonel]

Air Force weapons don't count!

I don't exactly know what your referring to with that but I've been trained on 9mm and M4 by the Military. I've taken courses personally for 40 and 45 pistols and 38 SP Revolver. I've seen Military style training, law enforcement style, and what the common civilian can get.

 

[Senethro]

Does noone remember the posts in the other thread that got locked? Theres not much point arguing with a racist who looks at skin colour first and twists all the facts afterwards.

 

[useless]

I always find it weird how when black people are killed in suspicious circumstances, they're labelled "thugs".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Eh? I don't think you've read what Mr Scribbler wrote.

His claim, if I've understood correctly, is that a period of time for shooting, plus 3 seconds of no shooting, plus another period of time for shooting, must total more than 3 seconds.

This looks to be inescapably true to me.

Unless shooting a gun does really strange things to time itself. Maybe it does, for all I know. (My experience of firearms is confined to having stood next to someone discharging a shotgun at a pigeon once.) It would be a remarkable phenomenon, even so.

MobBoss seldom reads what he quotes and disputes, apparently.

 

[Colonel]

I always find it weird how when black people are killed in suspicious circumstances, they're labelled "thugs".

labeling for what they are. Criminals! They are criminal, thug, or gang bangers if you prefer.

 

[MobBoss]

Sure, you can shoot that often. But with any decent-sized caliber there is no point in doing so, because shots 2-4 will hit anything but the target. If American police is indeed trained that way, it is another example how bad that training is.

Um...no, as this depends a lot on the expertise of the shooter and distance involved (like you said, less than 30 feet).

If you shoot thousands of rounds a year in training for several years, you greatly increase your odds of hitting a man-sized target multiple times in that type of situation. I know because I've had training like that.

At least that explains why they always unleash a storm of bullets when one or two would suffice. I guess if you don't aim at all and rely on the statistics of your bullet spread, you need to be quite trigger happy to hit anything at all.

Again, stopping a man with a handgun can have a pretty wide result. In some cases a single shot will stop them dead in their tracks. In other instances you can unload the entire clip at them and they will keep coming. The human body is a wonder in that in can be both incredibly frail in one instance, and amazingly resilient in the other. Anyone trained to use a firearm on a human target is taught to not shoot just once, but to shoot a volley for that particular reason.

In this particular instance, if the officer only shoots once, and missed (or even hit but not stopped him) Brown would be on him.

I don't see anything really impossible in how the actual shooting was timed or explained. But then again, I'm a 26 year US Army retiree with more than my fair share of weapons training.

The storm of bullets is actually what you're supposed to do. The bullets in question are hollow-points, so they don't penetrate through the target, and if you're that close to them then you want to make sure that they're quickly and unambiguously dead - bearing in mind that adrenaline often makes people ignore injuries for a few seconds that subsequently kill them. If you shoot the chap with two bullets, there's a chance (especially if you're not shooting particularly accurately, because an enemy with a gun just popped up in front of you!) that he'll go down, fire off a shot, and then expire. Obviously you don't empty your rifle into the first person you see, because that leaves you in a sticky situation for the next one. At the very least, with a pistol you try to make two or three hits, at least one of which is to the head, so should be fatal on its own.

There was a Private Eye cover after an SAS unit killed 3 IRA men in Gibraltar showing one soldier being asked why he shot one man sixteen times, to which he responds 'because I ran out of bullets'. That anecdote has since passed into training as the right way to do it.

Precisely.

I always find it weird how when black people are killed in suspicious circumstances, they're labelled "thugs".

Wasn't that in reference to how he treated the store owner when he still the cigarillos?

I find it weird that you'd ignore the original reference (his behavior at the store), and then try to tie it to him being shot.

 

[MobBoss]

Eh? I don't think you've read what Mr Scribbler wrote.

His claim, if I've understood correctly, is that a period of time for shooting, plus 3 seconds of no shooting, plus another period of time for shooting, must total more than 3 seconds.

This looks to be inescapably true to me.

Unless shooting a gun does really strange things to time itself. Maybe it does, for all I know. (My experience of firearms is confined to having stood next to someone discharging a shotgun at a pigeon once.) It would be a remarkable phenomenon, even so.

According to testimony, Wilson managed to fire all 10 shots of his pistol inside of 7 seconds with a 3 second delay between shots 6 and 7. That is entirely consistent with what I said is possible with a semi-automatic pistol.

As to what scribbler's personal experiment was...well, he needs to have prefaced his little sprint with a struggle with a cop in a car where he gets shot, a run about 184 feet away, losing his flip flops in the process, then turning and only then running at an officer another 30 feet or so.

Then he may indeed have some realistic comparison to what Brown did that day.

 

[Zkribbler]

According to testimony, Wilson managed to fire all 10 shots of his pistol inside of 7 seconds with a 3 second delay between shots 6 and 7. That is entirely consistent with what I said is possible with a semi-automatic pistol.

As to what scribbler's personal experiment was...well, he needs to have prefaced his little sprint with a struggle with a cop in a car where he gets shot, a run about 184 feet away, losing his flip flops in the process, then turning and only then running at an officer another 30 feet or so.

Then he may indeed have some realistic comparison to what Brown did that day.

My point was, if I an out-of-shape senior, can run the entire distance run by Mike Brown in 3 seconds, then a young man like Brown could have probably run it faster. Even if he didn't, 3 seconds is the entire time of the pause between the two fusillades of shots. This would leave no time at all for Wilson to fire the gun. Ergo, Wilson's story is not accurate. More than likely, he fired the first fusillade of shots as Brown was fleeing.

If you think I somehow skewed the results, run the experiment yourself.

 

[Zkribbler]

No, you're wrong. it takes less than a second or so to fire 4 shots with a semi-automatic pistol. Its more bang-bang-bang-bang as fast as you can twitch a finger; not bang-pause-bang-pause-bang-pause-bang.

Cops are trained to fire like that in those situations where most people aren't. They are also trained to be able to fire while walking forward or backward at a steady pace while keeping on target.

Let me guess, you don't have a lot of experience in firearms do you?

True, I don't have a lot of experience with firearms. I haven't fire one since high school.

I do know something about police training. They are trained to fire two times [or three times, depending upon the department] and then assess the situation. They are not trained to as fast as they can.

 

[Zkribbler]

Um? Do you know anything about firearms at all? I can fire a number of weapons while moving in rapid succession while maintaining accuracy. Its what my training has taught me.

Your guns have no kick? Amazing!

 

[bhsup]

A phrase just came to me tonight and I want to share it with everyone. I am gonna start using it to refer to anyone that insists on using the shooting with Michael Brown as an example of police racism/brutality. Anyone is free to use it as well. Maybe it will catch on. Inspired by those whackos that think the US government lied in their official reports of what happened after 9/11, or don't care if they lied or not and just want to paint the government as evil.

"Gentle Giant Truthers"

 

[uppi]

The storm of bullets is actually what you're supposed to do. The bullets in question are hollow-points, so they don't penetrate through the target, and if you're that close to them then you want to make sure that they're quickly and unambiguously dead - bearing in mind that adrenaline often makes people ignore injuries for a few seconds that subsequently kill them. If you shoot the chap with two bullets, there's a chance (especially if you're not shooting particularly accurately, because an enemy with a gun just popped up in front of you!) that he'll go down, fire off a shot, and then expire. Obviously you don't empty your rifle into the first person you see, because that leaves you in a sticky situation for the next one. At the very least, with a pistol you try to make two or three hits, at least one of which is to the head, so should be fatal on its own.

There was a Private Eye cover after an SAS unit killed 3 IRA men in Gibraltar showing one soldier being asked why he shot one man sixteen times, to which he responds 'because I ran out of bullets'. That anecdote has since passed into training as the right way to do it.

That depends on what you are trying to do. Against an equally armed enemy trying to kill you, there is no point in taking chances. But against an unarmed suspect in a law enforcement situation, it might be worth to take a little risk and minimize the use of violence. Considerable protection of a police officer relies on the respect and trust of the community. If there are too many incidents of using what the community considers excessive force, the whole police force suffers a greater risk.

Um...no, as this depends a lot on the expertise of the shooter and distance involved (like you said, less than 30 feet).

If you shoot thousands of rounds a year in training for several years, you greatly increase your odds of hitting a man-sized target multiple times in that type of situation. I know because I've had training like that.

Of course it depends on these things. If not much accuracy is required you can fire more quickly. But no one can tell me that he can shoot 4 shots in 1 second with a 9mm pistol and get the same accuracy as with one well-aimed shot.

Again, stopping a man with a handgun can have a pretty wide result. In some cases a single shot will stop them dead in their tracks. In other instances you can unload the entire clip at them and they will keep coming. The human body is a wonder in that in can be both incredibly frail in one instance, and amazingly resilient in the other. Anyone trained to use a firearm on a human target is taught to not shoot just once, but to shoot a volley for that particular reason.

Not anyone: According to the firearm use statistics, the German police needs on average less than 1.5 shots to stop the attacker in self-defense situations. Obviously they're not trained to empty their pistol and it seems to work for them.

In this particular instance, if the officer only shoots once, and missed (or even hit but not stopped him) Brown would be on him.

If he missed an attacker charging at him at this distance, he shouldn't have been carrying a pistol. And a wound or even a miss might have stopped Brown. But we are never going to know, because the American police prefers to err on the side of way too many bullets.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Considerable protection of a police officer relies on the respect and trust of the community. If there are too many incidents of using what the community considers excessive force, the whole police force suffers a greater risk.

Don't try to tell American cops or our local apologists this.

Community be damned! The police are due our unswerving gratitude and support no matter what!

/sarcasm