the Michael Brown thread

[2clicker]

Don't they have have rubber bullets they could have used instead?

yes, but they are using them on the innocent protestors and media instead.

Anybody here remember a cop from the LAPD shooting a 102 lb. homeless woman armed with a screwdriver? she wasn't as big as Brown, so how come the officer chose letal force on her before attempting anything else, in my opinion too many officers are trigger happy nowadays, knowing it is almost impossible to find them guilty if ever prosecuted.

this! and you know when other cops and ex cops agree that something is wrong.

I'm thinking if I look up statistics comparing officers being attacked in the line of duty to officers killing suspects without cause, the math would be far in favor of the police.

Just saying.

BTW I'm sorry, but a night stick is far from an adequate defense in a situation similar to what the police propose happened. Pepper spray is very ineffective against blind rage, tazers arent anywhere near an adequate defense in every situation, and physics still rule the universe.

It's nice to armchair quarterback and list all the "options" the officer had to consider in the few seconds all this happened though.

again they are trained for a reason and given tools for those reasons. they should be expected to use them.

funny you say that about the night stick. my fathers words were... "you just dont shoot an unarmed man". and "i would have handled it with my night stick".

a night stick is EXTREMELY effective. just sayin.

 

[Chill Dude]

Honestly I don't see a lot of people putting themselves in the cops shoes. He's a human too.

Really? I have, in fact, that's the first thing I did as the story started to unfold. I asked myself...what would I have done if I were in his cop's shoes? My answer at this moment is there is fucking no way I would have shot that kid based upon the most current news reports.

I would predict that most people participating in this thread have put themselves in the cop's shoes. Isn't that the most basic thought process in forging an opinion to events like this?

 

[JCat]

I might be stupid or something here ... because I really don't understand this ... I live in the North and have grown up with guns (hunting) ... why can't a gun be used to subdue an assailant without killing him ... last time I checked someone who has his knees shot out doesn't keep running at you ... (ie. why is "killing" the assailant the goal ... I understand "strong" force but why "lethal" force ... why aim for the heart or head?) Why are our police officers (in Canada too) being trained to use lethal force so quickly?

 

[rayski]

If MB wasn't about to harm someone, the officer could just call for backup. If he thought MB was armed, wouldn't he think his buddy might be armed also. Why risk getting shot by his friend to pursue MB.

 

[2clicker]

If MB wasn't about to harm someone, the officer could just call for backup. If he thought MB was armed, wouldn't he think his buddy might be armed also. Why risk getting shot by his friend to pursue MB.

why would he assume they are armed? because they are african american?

did the cop say he thought either of them had weapons? this is the first im hearing of this.

 

[invertedisdead]

I'm thinking if I look up statistics comparing officers being attacked in the line of duty to officers killing suspects without cause, the math would be far in favor of the police.
.

And I think if you looked up statistics of tasers, pepper spray, and batons working it would be in favor of them being effective the vast majority of the time. One video post does not prove them ineffective. Even if the taser didn't subdue him (and there's no reason why it wouldn't) the officer could still draw his pistol from there. This is a radically different chain of response then squeezing off half a magazine.

If somebody tazed and maced you, I believe you would be in such extreme pain and discomfort that even if you weren't incapacitated you would be subdued long enough for additional police assistance to arrive.

Again... the man was unarmed. This wasn't a gun fight. There was only one gun.
Maybe the officer was high on PCP (big in STL) and thought Brown was gonna do this.

 

[Madcap79]

I might be stupid or something here ... because I really don't understand this ... I live in the North and have grown up with guns (hunting) ... why can't a gun be used to subdue an assailant without killing him ... last time I checked someone who has his knees shot out doesn't keep running at you ... (ie. why is "killing" the assailant the goal ... I understand "strong" force but why "lethal" force ... why aim for the heart or head?) Why are our police officers (in Canada too) being trained to use lethal force so quickly?

Thank you! I said the same thing. If he was running at the cop, why not shoot at MB's legs? I doubt he was running in a zig zag pattern. Maybe the cop was just a terrible shot?

 

[Caligula]

Really? I have, in fact, that's the first thing I did as the story started to unfold. I asked myself...what would I have done if I were in his cop's shoes? My answer at this moment is there is fucking no way I would have shot that kid based upon the most current news reports.

I would predict that most people participating in this thread have put themselves in the cop's shoes. Isn't that the most basic thought process in forging an opinion to events like this?

Perhaps I should elaborate as to what I meant. I don't think people are logically looking at the situation through the officer's eyes. No, let me further distill that thought... I don't think people have enough real world experience (or baring that, a solid grasp of the physics and physiology involved here).

I'll try to highlight a few examples below.

its called a billy club. if he was charging him he should have used that instead.

"Dr. Michael Baden, a renowned New York forensic pathologist who performed a preliminary autopsy commissioned by Brown's family, said his examination... suggested that Brown was shot from a distance of at least one to two feet"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...hael-brown-autopsy-20140818-story.html#page=1

So let's take the officer's (as well as "non cop" witness accounts) at face value and say 6'4", 300lb Michael Brown was charging the officer. As someone who has played football, I can tell you that a person of that stature can close "one to two feet" in a literal fraction of a second. In fact, if that's how it went down, Id say the officer waited to last possible moment before opening fire. Of course, that's assuming everything went down like they say.

...and yes tazing does work. not everyone can take it even if you are big. and they also have mace of which nobody can handle. and if anyone can then they are freaks of nature or on meth or something.

It would be more accurate to say that "tazing can work". As I just demonstrated in the previous reply, tazers and OC spray can be UNDERWHELMINGLY ineffective. I would further argue that someone the size of a linebacker rushing at police could quite possibly be amped up on adrenaline and/or drugs (Im being silly, I'm sure cops are never attacked by people hopped up on drugs), further increasing the chances that less than lethal techniques would be ineffective.

this guy had other options. i KNOW this to be fact.

We all have an infinite number of options regarding every event that occurs in our lives. The questions remains, how much time did the individuals involved have to consider and weight those options? As I said, its easy to arm-chair quaterback after the fact and without the threat of physical injury or death hanging over your head.

this big guy is running at me... my only option to protect myself is to kill him... nah i dont think so. the gun should be his last option against an unarmed man. regardless of his size.

so if these other methods of defense are so useless why are the cops equipped with them? yes he should have tazed or sprayed him or just beat him until he could subdue MB. its not u reasonable to expect a cop to do this. cops are trained to do this.[/QUOTE]

• I already have given reasoning, with video proof, as to why these options are "less than optimal". Even if those weapons are ineffective a small portion of the time, you aren't going to want to reach for them if your life is in danger. Furthermore, that's not how LE is trained (which I suppose could be a legitimate argument, but that seems to be low on people's list).
• Police are equipped with those less than lethal measures for instances where they are appropriate. Now the questions remains, when is it appropriate? Is it still appropriate to use less than lethal force on a suspect who has already ignored your commands and that is rushing you? How about when that suspect is extremely large, and you have no idea on his state of mind, what drugs he may or may not be on, or if he is even armed?
• Being "trained" to hit someone in the head with a club is a far cry from being confidant that you can knock a 300lb assailant out cold in the first blow. What happens if the cop misses, or simply hurts and pisses the suspect off more? Well, if the officer gets taken to the ground, something like this might happen:

BTW that officer was EXTREMELY lucky. I also avoided posting videos where the officer actually get shot with his own firearm. Figured that would be in poor taste.

Thank you! I said the same thing. If he was running at the cop, why not shoot at MB's legs? I doubt he was running in a zig zag pattern. Maybe the cop was just a terrible shot?

Again, this shows a disconnect from reality. Reality of how things work in a real life situation as well as the reality of police training. When you fire your weapon you NEVER "shoot to wound". You shoot center of mass and you keep shooting until the target is no longer a threat. Go through any firearms training, be it private, LE or military, and that's one of the first things that is taught to you.

Also, its extremely hard to hit a moving target while under duress. Again, this is another reality that people with no experience seem to take into consideration... but its one of the reasons why police, military, etc are trained to fire multiple rounds.

And I think if you looked up statistics of tasers, pepper spray, and batons working it would be in favor of them being effective the vast majority of the time

I'm glad you're willing to take that gamble on someone else's life. I'm sure the officer who has a large charging man coming at him, has a different opinion about playing those odds though.

Let me ask you... when your life is in danger and you only have few seconds to react, whats more likely to pop in your head as you decide on which tool to use?

"Well, this one usually works..."

or

"I remember that time when I hit a pissed off crackhead with this thing and he didn't flinch..."


I would also like to remind people that (again, according to the emerging story) before the shooting occurred, the officer already had his firearm drawn and MB failed to get on the ground when initially asked. AFAIK those 2 facts aren't in much question.

Now, assuming MB was running at the cop like they say, how fast do you think that officer would need to be in order to assess the situation, HOLSTER HIS ALREADY DRAWN WEAPON, unholster his OC spray/tazer, take the safety off, AIM, and finally fire at the 6'4", 300lb male coming at him?

Talk about The Matrix style skills!

 

[aesthyrian]

Don't they have have rubber bullets they could have used instead?

Nah, I guess they only use those after they murder an unarmed man.

on a non-related note, I find it pretty laughable that one would think pepper spray/mace can't stop an attacker. What can someone do after their vision is gone or heavily obstructed? Honestly, you shoot for the eyes and it's over.

I mean, it works on fucking bears... I'm no expert, so I assume there are varying degree's of pepper spray/mace but none the less, my point remains. If someone can't see, you win.

That is unless your so afraid of getting hurt that you just need to shoot someone 6 times. Someone who is that scared should not have voluntarily taken a job as a Police Officer. Sorry, but that's why you won't see me becoming a cop or joining the army. I mean, the officer had a kevlar vest on I assume? He clearly has more protection then the typical civilian, but still, so scared that he needs to end another life to save his own? Like his life was actually ever close to being ended in this situation anyway.

 

[2clicker]

Perhaps I should elaborate as to what I meant. I don't think people are logically looking at the situation through the officer's eyes. No, let me further distill that thought... I don't think people have enough real world experience (or baring that, a solid grasp of the physics and physiology involved here).

I'll try to highlight a few examples below.



"Dr. Michael Baden, a renowned New York forensic pathologist who performed a preliminary autopsy commissioned by Brown's family, said his examination... suggested that Brown was shot from a distance of at least one to two feet"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...hael-brown-autopsy-20140818-story.html#page=1

So let's take the officer's (as well as "non cop" witness accounts) at face value and say 6'4", 300lb Michael Brown was charging the officer. As someone who has played football, I can tell you that a person of that stature can close "one to two feet" in a literal fraction of a second. In fact, if that's how it went down, Id say the officer waited to last possible moment before opening fire. Of course, that's assuming everything went down like they say.




It would be more accurate to say that "tazing can work". As I just demonstrated in the previous reply, tazers and OC spray can be UNDERWHELMINGLY ineffective. I would further argue that someone the size of a linebacker rushing at police could quite possibly be amped up on adrenaline and/or drugs (Im being silly, I'm sure cops are never attacked by people hopped up on drugs), further increasing the chances that less than lethal techniques would be ineffective.




We all have an infinite number of options regarding every event that occurs in our lives. The questions remains, how much time did the individuals involved have to consider and weight those options? As I said, its easy to arm-chair quaterback after the fact and without the threat of physical injury or death hanging over your head.

so if these other methods of defense are so useless why are the cops equipped with them? yes he should have tazed or sprayed him or just beat him until he could subdue MB. its not u reasonable to expect a cop to do this. cops are trained to do this.

• I already have given reasoning, with video proof, as to why these options are "less than optimal". Even if those weapons are ineffective a small portion of the time, you aren't going to want to reach for them if your life is in danger. Furthermore, that's not how LE is trained (which I suppose could be a legitimate argument, but that seems to be low on people's list).
• Police are equipped with those less than lethal measures for instances where they are appropriate. Now the questions remains, when is it appropriate? Is it still appropriate to use less than lethal force on a suspect who has already ignored your commands and that is rushing you? How about when that suspect is extremely large, and you have no idea on his state of mind, what drugs he may or may not be on, or if he is even armed?
• Being "trained" to hit someone in the head with a club is a far cry from being confidant that you can knock a 300lb assailant out cold in the first blow. What happens if the cop misses, or simply hurts and pisses the suspect off more? Well, if the officer gets taken to the ground, something like this might happen:

BTW that officer was EXTREMELY lucky. I also avoided posting videos where the officer actually get shot with his own firearm. Figured that would be in poor taste.



Again, this shows a disconnect from reality. Reality of how things work in a real life situation as well as the reality of police training. When you fire your weapon you NEVER "shoot to wound". You shoot center of mass and you keep shooting until the target is no longer a threat. Go through any firearms training, be it private, LE or military, and that's one of the first things that is taught to you.

Also, its extremely hard to hit a moving target while under duress. Again, this is another reality that people with no experience seem to take into consideration... but its one of the reasons why police, military, etc are trained to fire multiple rounds.



I'm glad you're willing to take that gamble on someone else's life. I'm sure the officer who has a large charging man coming at him, has a different opinion about playing those odds though.

Let me ask you... when your life is in danger and you only have few seconds to react, whats more likely to pop in your head as you decide on which tool to use?

"This usually works..."

or

"I remember that time when I hit a pissed off crackhead with this thing and he didn't flinch..."


I would also like to remind people that (again, according to the emerging story) before the shooting occurred, the officer already had his firearm drawn and MB failed to get on the ground when initially asked. AFAIK those 2 facts aren't in much question.

Now, assuming MB was running at the cop like they say, how fast do you think that officer would need to be in order to assess the situation, HOLSTER HIS ALREADY DRAWN WEAPON, unholster his OC spray/tazer, take the safety off, AIM, and finally fire at the 6'4", 300lb male coming at him?

Talk about The Matrix style skills!

captain hindsight? cmon man.

LE is trained that way. yes those methods are very effective. just ask some LE! i just did and two cops agreed. im sorry but your wrong about these not being viable options here. i have police telling me they are.

and nobody is expecting him to reholster his sidearm and pull his tazer. the tazer, mace, and night stick should have been the first weapon the cop pulled. so he would not have to reholster. i mean i have cops agreeing those points.

if MB was a foot away and wailing away on the cop then it would indeed be his fault.

i find it to be weird how even the cops original story was different than what the drs autopsy suggests.

 

[Caligula]

That is unless your so afraid of getting hurt that you just need to shoot someone 6 times. Someone who is that scared should not have voluntarily taken a job as a Police Officer. Sorry, but that's why you won't see me becoming a cop or joining the army. I mean, the officer had a kevlar vest on I assume? He clearly has more protection then the typical civilian, but still, so scared that he needs to end another life to save his own? Like his life was actually ever close to being ended in this situation anyway.

You're right. That kevlar vest and the fact that he any military or LE member wasn't forced at gunpoint to take their job, means that they have absolutely no right to take their own safety into consideration (or the safety of others?).

Fuck dealing with the world on reality's terms. Ideals and morals reign supreme.

LE is trained that way. yes those methods are very effective. just ask some LE! i just did and two cops agreed. im sorry but your wrong about these not being viable options here. i have police telling me they are.

and nobody is expecting him to reholster his sidearm and pull his tazer. the tazer, mace, and night stick should have been the first weapon the cop pulled. so he would not have to reholster. i mean i have cops agreeing those points.

if MB was a foot away and wailing away on the cop then it would indeed be his fault.

i find it to be weird how even the cops original story was different than what the drs autopsy suggests.

See, coming to these conclusions would mean that you either KNOW some facts that the rest of us are not privy to, or some assumptions are being made regarding what went down. Id like to take this moment to reiterate that my main point here is that we don't have this crucial information as of yet.

 

[Madcap79]

I'm pretty sure the ME said that the shots were fired from a distance. It would be interesting to know how far the officer and Brown were away from each other.

Also, the cop could have easily hit innocent bystanders. If he was in such a rush and had no time, I'm sure he would have time to assess the background he was shooting into.

 

[invertedisdead]

Now, assuming MB was running at the cop like they say, how fast do you think that officer would need to be in order to assess the situation, HOLSTER HIS ALREADY DRAWN WEAPON, unholster his OC spray/tazer, take the safety off, AIM, and finally fire at the 6'4", 300lb male coming at him?

If the officer would have drawn a more appropriate weapon from the start he wouldn't have had to switch anything. He could have already had both the taser and mace deployed. Since the mace is essentially an automatic weapon he could release it even while lining up a shot from the taser. It's not a stun gun. Both of these are ranged weapons, the officer could have made space. Brown was unarmed so had no way to close any distance other then physical speed. Even if Brown tried to assault the cop the taser will hit before Brown does.

Also, you keep mentioning Browns size as if this was something the cop never encountered. Being born and raised in St. Louis there are lots of tall black people there. Surely an officer that has been on the force for years has had numerous encounters with people that size. I don't really see it as an excuse for his actions.

already have given reasoning, with video proof, as to why these options are "less than optimal". Even if those weapons are ineffective a small portion of the time, you aren't going to want to reach for them if your life is in danger.

There was only one guy with a gun. What made the cops life more in danger then Michael's? It seems to me the only persons whose life was actually in danger is the one currently in the morgue.

 

[Caligula]

I'm pretty sure the ME said that the shots were fired from a distance. It would be interesting to know how far the officer and Brown were away from each other.

I already gave the direct quote from the M.E. as well as the LA Times article which I got it from, stating that the fatal shots occurred "[from a] distance of at least 1 to two feet". This may change with further examination, however I can only go off of the info currently available.

"Dr. Michael Baden, a renowned New York forensic pathologist who performed a preliminary autopsy commissioned by Brown's family, said his examination... suggested that Brown was shot from a distance of at least one to two feet..."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...hael-brown-autopsy-20140818-story.html#page=1

If the officer would have drawn a more appropriate weapon from the start he wouldn't have had to switch anything. He could have already had both the taser and mace deployed. Since the mace is essentially an automatic weapon he could release it even while lining up a shot from the taser. It's not a stun gun. Both of these are ranged weapons, the officer could have made space. Brown was unarmed so had no way to close any distance other then physical speed. Even if Brown tried to assault the cop the taser will hit before Brown does.

Also, you keep mentioning Browns size as if this was something the cop never encountered. Being born and raised in St. Louis there are lots of tall black people there. Surely an officer that has been on the force for years has had numerous encounters with people that size. I don't really see it as an excuse for his actions.


There was only one guy with a gun. What made the cops life more in danger then Michael's? It seems to me the only persons whose life was actually in danger is the one currently in the morgue.

Im afraid a lot of this doesnt make much sense to me.

• Are you proposing this officer should have been double fisting a tazer and a can of OC spray like some John Woo movie character?
• It is unclear as to what occurred prior to the officer pulling his firearm. So to simply state that it was inappropriate for him to have it drawn at the time of the shooting, without further information, is doing a disservice to finding the truth here.
• "...mace is essentially an automatic weapon he could release it even while lining up a shot from the taser." Okay, this makes absolutely no sense. It does give me an idea, however, that you aren't completely familiar with how these tools work in real life application. Furthermore, to even suggest that you can accurately aim a projectile weapon whilst simultaneously keeping a stream of OC spray on a charging suspect is laughable at best.
  
• As I've pointed out several times now, a tazer doesnt always drop a suspect. Even if the guy is smaller than MB and is standing still. This isn't something you trust your life to. I'm now hoping that I don't need to reiterate how someone can continue to lay a beat down on multiple opponents even after being blasted in the eyes with military OC spray.
• Did you ever stop to think that having encountered "suspects of large size", the officer may have first hand experience with less than lethal alternatives being less than effective? Again, two way roads here.
• Of course MBs size matters. You are going to tell me that if he was 5'6" and 120lbs, his physical stature wouldn't be brought to the forefront every time a MB supporter talked to the media? Besides, it has quite a bit to do with intimidation factor. To say otherwise is being a tad bit dishonest IMO.

There was only one guy with a gun. What made the cops life more in danger then Michael's? It seems to me the only persons whose life was actually in danger is the one currently in the morgue.

Once again, we are lucky to be privy to this information AFTER THE FACT. And yet again, these are bits of info that the officer had no way of knowing at the time of the incident.

 

[aesthyrian]

You're right. That kevlar vest and the fact that he any military or LE member wasn't forced at gunpoint to take their job, means that they have absolutely no right to take their own safety into consideration (or the safety of others?).

Yep, exactly what I said.


Those videos you posted just reinforce my initial point that if these officers were not carrying guns, then the gun would have never been used against them. In these instances, the gun IS the problem. Why do our police have to approach every situation armed with a gun? Like I also said either, I know this is America, and guns are god in this country. I know it's not realistic to expect LEO to not carry a weapon at all times. Just sayin'.

See, coming to these conclusions would mean that you either KNOW some facts that the rest of us are not privy to, or some assumptions are being made regarding what went down. Id like to take this moment to reiterate that my main point here is that we don't have this crucial information as of yet.

My assumption is that one man was armed and wearing bullet proof protection, while the other had neither a weapon nor any extra protection beyond a t-shirt.

So yeah, I fail to see where this officer's life was in harm to the point that he had to shoot and kill an unarmed man. Does the officer even have any markings on him? Broken bones? Did he bleed? Did the officer have to go to hospital?

These are question's that I do not know the answers to, but clearly answers are needed.

It's kind of like the George Zimmerman case, where "poor" George had like 2 tiny scratches on his face, so he just HAD to kill the kid. I mean, clearly he was mere seconds away from dying.

Gun Culture. Yay.

 

[Caligula]

Yep, exactly what I said.
Those videos you posted just reinforce my initial point that if these officers were not carrying guns, then the gun would have never been used against them. In these instances, the gun IS the problem. Why do our police have to approach every situation armed with a gun? Like I also said either, I know this is America, and guns are god in this country. I know it's not realistic to expect LEO to not carry a weapon at all times. Just sayin'.

See, whats funny is that one of the videos I linked happened in AUSTRALIA. You know, one of the countries that gets brought up as how to do things "right" by those who support tighter gun legislation in this country.

Another video is of a female officer getting her TAZER taken away from her... AFTER the suspect was shot with it.

The other two videos occurred in a court house and in city hall respectively. Two places where even the most vehement anti-gun lobbyists don't have an issue with armed security.

Just sayin'.

 

[aesthyrian]

Yep, and if they all only had a tazer taken from them and then used against them...

 

[Caligula]

Yep, and if they all only had a tazer taken form them and then used against them...

Indeed. I cant think of a single bad thing that could have happened to that female officer had she been shot and incapacitated by her own less than lethal Tazer. Besides, it's a well known fact that criminals never have firearms on their person when out in public.

 

[Madcap79]

All I said was, it would be interesting to know.

Edit: ME said he needed the clothes to make the determination for sure. My apologies.

 

[Caligula]

Obviously a distance over that because there were no traces of gun powder. All I said was, it would be interesting to know.

One would assume that a superstar M.E. examiner hired by the victim's family would take that into consideration. Although, this is probably why the M.E. stated further examination is required. But yes, just more reason why people should be listening and not reacting.

 

[invertedisdead]

I already gave the direct quote from the M.E. as well as the LA Times article which I got it from stating that the ME things the fatal shots occurred "within 1 to two feet". This may change with further examination, however I can only go off of the info currently available.

"Dr. Michael Baden, a renowned New York forensic pathologist who performed a preliminary autopsy commissioned by Brown's family, said his examination... suggested that Brown was shot from a distance of at least one to two feet"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...hael-brown-autopsy-20140818-story.html#page=1



Im afraid a lot of this doesnt make much sense to me.

• Are you proposing this officer should have been double fisting a tazer and a can of OC spray like some John Woo movie character?
• It is unclear as to what occurred prior to the officer pulling his firearm. So to simply state that it was inappropriate for him to have it drawn at the time of the shooting, without further information, is doing a disservice to finding the truth here.
• "...mace is essentially an automatic weapon he could release it even while lining up a shot from the taser." Okay, this makes absolutely no sense. It does give me an idea, however, that you aren't completely familiar with how these tools work in real life application. Furthermore, to even suggest that you can accurately aim a projectile weapon whilst simultaneously keeping a stream of OC spray on a charging suspect is laughable at best.
  
• As I've pointed out several times now, a tazer doesnt always drop a suspect. Even if the guy is smaller than MB and is standing still. This isn't something you trust your life to. I'm now hoping that I don't need to reiterate how someone can continue to lay a beat down on multiple opponents even after being blasted in the eyes with military OC spray.
• Did you ever stop to think that having encountered "suspects of large size", the officer may have first hand experience with less than lethal alternatives being less than effective? Again, two way roads here.

You know what else doesn't always work? Guns! I guess that's why he shot him 6 times. BUT even 6 rounds doesn't mean Brown would have died. Some people have survived over 20 gunshots, so technically (since you like statistics) the pistol may not have been any more effective then the same weapons you are trying to disprove. Unless the goal was finishing in death (murder) then its true the MOST EFFECTIVE weapon for MURDER is still probably the pistol. The taser and pepper spray are equally capable at incapacitating a suspect, but likely not as reliable for murdering as a handgun.

 

[Madcap79]

@Caligula The eyewitness youtube video is now private.......

 

[Caligula]

so technically (since you like statistics) the pistol may not have been any more effective then the same weapons you are trying to disprove.

I do like statistics. Would you like to wager on which of the tools at his disposal has the best track record for fully incapacitating its intended target? You see, my point isn't that the officer's sidearm is some infallible object of god-like proportions, but rather that it's the most effective tool for the job at hand.

You know what else doesn't always work? Guns! I guess that's why he shot him 6 times. BUT even 6 rounds doesn't mean Brown would have died. Some people have survived over 20 gunshots...

I agree 100%. You are indeed spot on at stating a firearm is no guarantee. It's also completely accurate to state that people are trained to fire multiple rounds at a target, because you can never count on a single bullet doing the job. Regardless, I can assure you that the person who survived 20 gunshots isn't going to pose as much of a threat as someone who got some pepper spray to the eyes, or even a club to the head.

Unless the goal was finishing in death (murder) then its true the MOST EFFECTIVE weapon for MURDER is still probably the pistol.

Exactly. You do not unholster your weapon and draw down on someone unless you are ready to take their life... and you most certainly do not discharge your firearms without the intent to fully incapacitate your target.

The taser and pepper spray are equally capable at incapacitating a suspect.

False.

@Caligula The eyewitness youtube video is now private.......

Well that's very interesting... I wonder why "Black Canseco" decided to make his video private all of the sudden?

Good thing I have the transcript posted for you. I'm sure the video will pop up again at some point though.

 

[Chill Dude]

I don't think people have enough real world experience (or baring that, a solid grasp of the physics and physiology involved here).

Who does? I don't think I've heard anyone chime in that they are experts in crime scene investigation or forensic science or that they possess an advanced degree in said fields....you included.

I do agree with your point that distance between the cop and Brown is going to be a huge piece of the puzzle. So a medical examiner had the distance pegged at at least one or two feet. So logically that's saying the distance could be one foot or it could be 200'..... who knows at this point? That said, if I'm not mistaken, almost all of the eyewitnesses through their statements seem to imply that the distance was indeed much further than two feet. That's all we have to go on now. It will be interesting to see the results of the gun powder forensics. That may shed some light on the distance question.

Modnote: Edited to remove reply from quote tags.

 

[Madcap79]

@Caligula Is that your personal transcription or.....

Also.....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html

Of course this account is from an eye witness so we don't know if its accurate....