Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities

Caine said:

Oh jesus christ...... If you don't even know what I mean by that in the discussion of "shoot to wound" vs "shoot to kill" then you are WAYY out of your league.

A LEG
AN ARM
A HAND
A FOOT

Those are "small targets" which if missed in a situation that calls for a quick reaction, means the death of an officer.



And with the level of stupidity you have displayed here Im done debating with you.

Click to expand...

Thank you

opendebate said:

So you state that you don't pay any attention to the smear yet you make mocking comments abut the "that sweet, innocent little ole' college bound, wide-eyed innocent. " Way to walk the talk.

The point is, that who video is utterly irrelevant. It was released for no reason other than to smear this kid and influence peoples opinion of his character so that when the cops offer their side of the story people would find it more believable. But I will say I don't consider this kid any more likely to have jumped a cop who had stopped him, knowing that cop has a gun and that he doesn't, just because he stole some cigars at a market.

Click to expand...

How about it was released to show his state of mind when faced with a police officer after his strong arm robbery?

So what do you think Browns state of mind was after stealing cigars, roughing up the shopkeeper, and then deciding he deserved to break pedestrian laws by walking down the middle of the street?

ocean515 said:

How about it was released to show his state of mind when faced with a police officer after his strong arm robbery?

So what do you think Browns state of mind was after stealing cigars, roughing up the shopkeeper, and then deciding he deserved to break pedestrian laws by walking down the middle of the street?

Click to expand...

Oh good lord.

Caine said:

Well, I don't anymore because I left the department almost 2 years ago.
But, yes I wrote alot of citations and when required I did appear in court as a witness. What happened where I worked was the first court date (the one on the citation) was in "administrative court" where basically you pay, or you let them know you are challenging the citation. If you are challenging the citation then they reschedule your case for the trial court room the officer is assigned to. Once THAT new court date comes up, the Officer is subpoenaed to be there and the case is handled.

But each court district may handle traffic citations differently within the same state. And obviously different states handle the cases differently than other states, etc.

Click to expand...

Did you have to submit to the subpoena? Here in WA st I dont know if there is a subpoena issued but the rest is like you described. But here, cops dont necessarily show up for the court date. And if they dont, the ticket/violation is dismissed. This does go back a few yrs, but not more than 7 or so.

opendebate said:

Oh good lord.

Click to expand...

You know, that's been my same response when reading your posts.

So, no comment then? It's a legitimate question.

ocean515 said:

How about it was released to show his state of mind when faced with a police officer after his strong arm robbery?

So what do you think Browns state of mind was after stealing cigars, roughing up the shopkeeper

Click to expand...

, and then deciding he deserved to break pedestrian laws by walking down the middle of the street?

Click to expand...

That he was working on his street cred?

opendebate said:

I'm suggesting that they may have other options besides shooting to kill

Click to expand...

Depends of course, if they are able to use other methods.

But if they shoot, they are required to shoot center of mass...the chest. The intent is to stop the threat and they are supposed to keep shooting until the threat is stopped: on the ground, immobile, unconscious, dead, surrendering, etc.

ocean515 said:

You know, that's been my same response when reading your posts.

So, no comment then? It's a legitimate question.

Click to expand...

No. No it isn't. What exactly do you think it tells you about this kids"state of mind"? Do you live in a bubble? You think taking cigars from a liqueur store means he was in some crazed state of mind?

opendebate said:

Oh so now the 300lb giant is a small target. How convenient.

Click to expand...

Well Wilson only got his arm for the most part and then it appears (we dont know) that Brown may have fallen forward into the other shots.

So...he wasnt able to aim correctly, was he? Guess it wasnt that easy.

opendebate said:

No. No it isn't. What exactly do you think it tells you about this kids"state of mind"? Do you live in a bubble? You think taking cigars from a liqueur store means he was in some crazed state of mind?

Click to expand...

Oh good lord

Lursa said:

Depends of course, if they are able to use other methods.

But if they shoot, they are required to shoot center of mass...the chest. The intent is to stop the threat and they are supposed to keep shooting until the threat is stopped: on the ground, immobile, unconscious, dead, surrendering, etc.

Click to expand...

They are still human beings behind the gun. They are capable of having emotions, being irrational and letting their own prejudices influence their decision. I understand that officers are trained in this way but I find it hard to believe that's it's necessary in ANY kind of potentially threatening situation. This case may be a very good example of when shooting to kill was not necessary and at the very least will encourage a different approach especially when dealing with someone who is unarmed.

I understand that police officers have a profoundly difficult job and I personally am thankful they are there doing that job. However, they have the power and authority to take someones life. I don't think insistence on a little more discretion is unreasonable.

"Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

opendebate said:

They are still human beings behind the gun. They are capable of having emotions, being irrational and letting their own prejudices influence their decision. I understand that officers are trained in this way but I find it hard to believe that's it's necessary in ANY kind of potentially threatening situation. This case may be a very good example of when shooting to kill was not necessary and at the very least will encourage a different approach especially when dealing with someone who is unarmed.

I understand that police officers have a profoundly difficult job and I personally am thankful they are there doing that job. However, they have the power and authority to take someones life. I don't think insistence on a little more discretion is unreasonable.

Click to expand...

The requirement has nothing to do with anyone's 'feelings.' The reason is safety, pure and simple.

It has to do with what you have already been told: under extreme stress, it's very difficult to aim well, esp. at a moving target. Brown appears to be proof of this, as so many were hand/arm shots.

You only shoot if there is a lethal threat, to stop gross bodily harm, commission of a forcible felony, to protect the safety of the public if you think their escape would do so, etc.

The implication...the fact...is that you have to stop the threat to protect your safety and the public's. Otherwise...as may also have happened with Brown...they can keep coming. THey may be on drugs, they are amped on adreneline, they are crazy. They can get hold of the cop's gun. Kill him, kill bystanders.

The standard is to shoot to center of mass for the best chance of stopping the threat. If a cop has time to think, 'oh jeez, maybe he didnt mean it,' either he has time to remove himself from the threat or the attacker will still be on him.

Did you read nothing else in these threads? I provided a link to the Tueller Drill, which has been tested and is admissable in court: an attacker can reach and kill a cop/person before they have time to draw, aim, and shoot if they are closer than 22 feet. They can cover that distance and overpower in 1.5 seconds.

I also posted a link about a cop being killed here, by a crazy naked guy. The guy overpowered him and killed him with his own gun.

Can you imagine how the media would have crucified that cop, had he lived, if he had even drawn his gun on the naked guy? He may very well have been killed because he knew how hard it would be to prove the lethal threat....killed by following the law. That's where the criminals always have an advantage...they dont have to waste time worrying about accidentally hitting bystanders or figuring out how the police review board or a jury will view it.

bubbabgone said:

That he was working on his street cred?

Click to expand...

Hello my friend.

It seems to me, someone stealing something from a store, threatening physical harm to the store keeper when confronted with the theft, and then walking down the middle of the street in a manner that suggest people can go screw themselves, indicates Brown wasn't to keen on anything that hinted at following the law.

Trying to show what a tough street guy he was seems plausible.

opendebate said:

I don't think insistence on a little more discretion is unreasonable.

Click to expand...

The laws on the use of lethal force, even for cops, are very clear and very strict.

The bar is very high.

It's determining if the circumstances warranted where we run into issues.

opendebate said:

They are still human beings behind the gun. They are capable of having emotions, being irrational and letting their own prejudices influence their decision. I understand that officers are trained in this way but I find it hard to believe that's it's necessary in ANY kind of potentially threatening situation. This case may be a very good example of when shooting to kill was not necessary and at the very least will encourage a different approach especially when dealing with someone who is unarmed.

I understand that police officers have a profoundly difficult job and I personally am thankful they are there doing that job. However, they have the power and authority to take someones life. I don't think insistence on a little more discretion is unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the family of a cop who used a little more discretion and didn't live to learn from their mistake.

opendebate said:

No. No it isn't. What exactly do you think it tells you about this kids"state of mind"? Do you live in a bubble? You think taking cigars from a liqueur store means he was in some crazed state of mind?

Click to expand...

No but if he thought the cop knew that he'd done it, it could certainly make him think he'd been caught and it was more than being asked to move out of the road (guilty conscience?)

Lursa said:

Did you have to submit to the subpoena? Here in WA st I dont know if there is a subpoena issued but the rest is like you described. But here, cops dont necessarily show up for the court date. And if they dont, the ticket/violation is dismissed. This does go back a few yrs, but not more than 7 or so.

Click to expand...

For the Admin day (the first court date on your citation) no, police don't have to show up, we aren't subpoenaed until someone challenges the ticket and a new date in trial court is set.

And, in the department I worked for, you had to show up for court or you were subject to disciplinary action.

Lursa said:

No but if he thought the cop knew that he'd done it, it could certainly make him think he'd been caught and it was more than being asked to move out of the road (guilty conscience?)

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but would being caught for stealing cigars motivate someone to charge an armed cop? I find that highly unlikely

opendebate said:

Perhaps, but would being caught for stealing cigars motivate someone to charge an armed cop? I find that highly unlikely

Click to expand...

Well there were a few things that led up to that, if it happened. Including physical contact and at least one gunshot.

If you were guilty....who knows what you'd do to escape consequences?

ocean515 said:

Hello my friend.

It seems to me, someone stealing something from a store, threatening physical harm to the store keeper when confronted with the theft, and then walking down the middle of the street in a manner that suggest people can go screw themselves, indicates Brown wasn't to keen on anything that hinted at following the law.

Trying to show what a tough street guy he was seems plausible.

Click to expand...

Hey O.
Sure appears that way.
That video from the store was something right out of a TV show ... but real life ... that he was copying.
Looks like he was slipping into that kind of thug persona ... despite the reports of him going off to college and such.
I don't think taking on a smaller cop and trying to grab his weapon would be out of the question.
We shall see.

Demon of Light said:

The stuff about family life is relevant to the extent that it could make him prone to anger and violence. It is most definitely relevant that he came from a police department that had to be disbanded due to frequent excessive force complaints. A similarly abusive culture appears to have permeated the Ferguson police department. Such an environment does make the odds of him being prone to excessive use of force much higher.

Click to expand...

Unless you can prove that not only was Officer Wilson involved in the excessive force complaints or even the racial tensions of that other department, but that he is also part of some "abusive culture" that you believe is "permeating" Ferguson, which isn't looking very promising considering the information we have now about Wilson, then it isn't relevant. People should not be considered guilty by association whether they are civilians or police.

ocean515 said:

Tell that to the family of a cop who used a little more discretion and didn't live to learn from their mistake.

Click to expand...

Tell this to the family of a victim of a cop who used too little discretion and died for another person's "mistake."

opendebate said:

Perhaps, but would being caught for stealing cigars motivate someone to charge an armed cop? I find that highly unlikely

Click to expand...

He knew he could have gotten charged with more than simple theft though. It would have been robbery and assault at least. He possibly faced robbery in the 2nd degree, which is a Class B felony, and at least assault in the 3rd degree, which is a misdemeanor. He couldn't really know what anyone told the cops. At the very least, assuming he actually did pay for the cigars, he had to know that pushing the clerk could be assault. But since his friend said that they had robbed the store, then he faced the higher charge as well, and knew it was a possibility. Was he likely to keep a scholarship if he was charged with a felony level robbery? Doubtful. He also likely knew such a charge could lose him the scholarship and/or admission to college. To some people, that is worth charging an armed officer. Not everyone thinks rationally, especially in situations like this one.

bubbabgone said:

"Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/u...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Click to expand...

While he did push the clerk, the surveillance camera clearly shows his companion holding the box of swishers while Brown was only holding a couple of packs. Not that it matters but it keeps bugging me that it reports he stole the box, when it clearly shows he had the packs not the box.