The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

[chesterfield]

Gary is absolutely right. It takes as many shots as it takes. I've been shot twice, one that broke my left ankle and one that entered behind my left ear and upon exiting blew out my right eye. Both were 9mm fired from a Tec-9 from about 6 feet away. I kept going. I ran to my vehicle and drove myself to a hospital, got out and walked inside. When people are running on adrenaline they may not even feel that they have been shot- I didn't-so there is no way for an officer to know how many shots are enough until the bad guy hits the ground. For the people that want to know why a bad guy can't just be shot in the leg or shoulder: There is no way to be sure that this will stop the threat. That kind of wound may still allow the bad guy to be dangerous and to avoid that the officer must do whatever is necessary to protect himself and others.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

In my area, and i assume most others, local police departments are often dominated by veteran infantrymen.

This is absolutely NOT the case around here, and I don't think it is anywhere in my state.

[TDL]

If the eye shot dropped him as Gary suggests , it's pretty well known that folks have a hard time inhibiting the next shot at a stop signal. Research has shown this and if there is a trial, the defense time needs to call the appropriate folk.

Yes, with the caveat that none of us know much about the actual facts yet, most non law enforcement don't know the training on firing until the threat stops. The empire state shooting by two FBI trained NYPD officers illustrates this training. Brown was unarmed, but if he had already grabbed at the officer, and was heading back at him, a grave threat was arguably present.

Overall this case illustrates a gulf between policing and civilians, and secondarily and worse a sensationalist bent in the press. If experienced police/crime beat press had been the main gatekeepers, the false memes that the Ferguson police were withholding info, or released the robbery footage to "smear" Brown, would have never been an issue.

Brown's assault in the commission of a robbery, even if Wilson did not know it, goes to Brown's state of mind. It is highly germane to the shooting, It makes him much more likely to flight or fight, because a) he was hyped up ; b) because of the likely penalty (felony arrest for the crime minutes before) of complying; and c) because it shows him capable of criminal violence. The main witness, Darien Johnson, is also a suspect in that assault and robbery, and has prior cases of lying to police, including false report filings.

And there is little to no reporting of the fact that the assault and robbery info was released because of media FOI requests combined with Missouri's sunshine laws which mandated release of the info. The press calling that a smear when it was press FOI requests that triggered it is ironic.

While the case also touched on both militarization of police and race issues, there is no evidence so far that those issues have anything to do the actual primary incident

[Fishing_Cabin]

Originally Posted by TDL

Overall this case illustrates a gulf between policing and civilians, and secondarily and worse a sensationalist bent in the press. If experienced police/crime beat press had been the main gatekeepers, the false memes that the Ferguson police were withholding info, or released the robbery footage to "smear" Brown, would have never been an issue.

Brown's assault in the commission of a robbery, even if Wilson did not know it, goes to Brown's state of mind. It is highly germane to the shooting, It makes him much more likely to flight or fight, because a) he was hyped up ; b) because of the likely penalty (felony arrest for the crime minutes before) of complying; and c) because it shows him capable of criminal violence. The main witness, Darien Johnson, is also a suspect in that assault and robbery, and has prior cases of lying to police, including false report filings.

You bring up a good point about the media. If they had experienced personnel they would have known and been able to explain the process to the viewers so that they would understand why the process may be slow and takes time to go through properly. Take the time so no mistakes are made which may affect the case negatively later on. Be picky when the family picks outside help by way of their lawyer so they pick the best people with the best knowledge.

Also, if the reporters cared about the case going to trial it would seem they would not be showing interviews from the different witnesses. Why? Because the defense will study those interviews and will bring up in court the difference between the statement that they made in writing, what they just testified to in court, and the various TV interviews, and try to show how they may have changed over time in an attempt to discredit the witness. It should seem that those who view this case as very important would be working hard to ensure that the witnesses are secured and know better than to be in the news, but it doesn't seem so.

Beyond that there will be 3 different autopsy reports possibly and a person which was involved in one has had his credentials already being questioned which is not good.

While they say that they want justice, I feel they should have paid more attention to preparing the components of the case, and stayed out of the media, making wiser decisions behind closed doors, instead of talking it up in public.

Even Jerry Miculek seemed to take a jab at one of the reporters and the "rubber bullet" question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfNj_najmQ8

[motorhead0922]

Originally Posted by chesterfield

Gary is absolutely right. It takes as many shots as it takes. I've been shot twice, one that broke my left ankle and one that entered behind my left ear and upon exiting blew out my right eye. Both were 9mm fired from a Tec-9 from about 6 feet away. I kept going. I ran to my vehicle and drove myself to a hospital, got out and walked inside. When people are running on adrenaline they may not even feel that they have been shot- I didn't-so there is no way for an officer to know how many shots are enough until the bad guy hits the ground. For the people that want to know why a bad guy can't just be shot in the leg or shoulder: There is no way to be sure that this will stop the threat. That kind of wound may still allow the bad guy to be dangerous and to avoid that the officer must do whatever is necessary to protect himself and others.

Chesterfield, the trajectory you describe would have the bullet passing right through your brain. Yet you were not stopped. Is that what you are saying?

[44 AMP]

While having no expertise, other than being an owner/operator for many decades, I do know that there are many recorded cases of bullets and other object passing through the brain and not being fatal, or even causing any incapacitation. Its rare, but it does happen.

[johnwilliamson062]

Why? Because the defense will study those interviews and will bring up in court the difference between the statement that they made in writing, what they just testified to in court, and the various TV interviews, and try to show how they may have changed over time in an attempt to discredit the witness.

I don't know why they should stop because of this. If the witness story changes over time then that is something that should be brought to light and the "media" helping to do so is not a negative. Eyewitness testimony is so shoddy to begin with.
Why I am more or less sticking with the PD deserves what they get in the civil trial. I find it hard to believe there will not be a preponderance of evidence supporting guilt even if not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[johnelmore]

Just put yourself in the officers shoes. Wear an unloaded holstered pistol (make sure to clear it and have your buddy clear it for safety). Next, have your buddy grab at your holstered pistol with a bit of force. Wear a football helmet for safety. Then come back here and tell us the results of this exercise. You will find it very difficult to retain that pistol especially if the man is twice your size.

It is absolutely stupid to grab at any persons holstered pistol and especially stupid to come back for a second try. The facts will play out in court probably, but I have already decided the smarts of at least one person in this scenario.

As for the media, they purposely stir up controversy to get more viewers and readers. Remember the term "muck rakers". Lincoln turned the Army on them because he felt they were purposely stiring up trouble to aid the rebellion versus reporting the facts. Not much has changed in 150+ years.

[Ruger480]

I would like more information about this struggle or fight at the police car. Was the officer inside or outside of his car? If he was outside, how is it that Brown, punched him in the face and then grabbed for his weapon and didn't get it? Brown is much larger than the officer. Did he grab it miss and run away? Or, did the scuffle occur inside the car? If that the case, did he lean through the window to reach across the seated officer to grab at the weapon on the officers right side? Or if the officer is left handed, he would have to have grabbed for the weapon from between the door and the officers body.

The whole thing sounds suspicious. If he is that much smaller than Brown, I don't see him winning any kind of physical confrontation/keeping his weapon if Brown wanted it. Like I said, I'd like to know just how this "fight" happened.

You will find it very difficult to retain that pistol especially if the man is twice your size.

This is what I'm thinking as well. Which makes me think that Brown may not have went for the officers weapon.

[johnwilliamson062]

On a strong side hip holster you grab the bottom of the holster and jam the hilt of the pistol as hard as you can into your ribcage. Ties up your had(s), probably leave you with bruises, but it is unlikely anyone will get your gun out of your holster. That is standard retention training. The bruises will be unnoticeable compared what an assailant can do to you while you are defenseless. Without someone to back you up it is pretty easy to disable then disarm.

Although attempting to disarm is in almost every jurisdiction cause to escalate to lethal force, once the threat is over it is not justification.

[JohnKSa]

Heard the people on the dead person's side say there is no excuse for six shots.

In the stress of a true self-defense encounter, it is very unlikely that the shooter will be able to accurately determine how many shots were fired or to control how many shots were fired.

A friend of mine does a lot of hog hunting and videos most of his shots and those of the people he hunts with. Hunting is much lower stress than self-defense and in a much more controlled situation. In spite of that, he's found that on more than one occasion, the videos show that he and his hunting partners have taken more shots than they remembered or intended. In one case, a hunter swore that he only shot once but the video showed that he not only fired more than once, he actually made good hits on two different hogs.

[johnelmore]

Remember Hulk Hogan in his prime? He was actually larger than the incredible hulk Lou Ferigno at 6 foot 7 295 lbs. Michael Brown was 6 foot 4 and 295 lbs. In the video he picks up the shopkeeper with one hand by the throat and tosses him into a rack.

Imagine if you have this huge Hulk Hogan like man coming after you. Do you take out the pepper spray or try to go at it hand to hand or do you take out the pistol? Its easy to sit on a message board safe at home and come to a conclusion, but if this man was coming for you Im sure you would whip out that pistol. He might just pick you up like Hulk Hogan and give you a good throw.

Its clear to me the officer is a good shot. Each shot hit its mark and it seemed as if he had a method. First he shot at the extremities hoping for a psychological stop. When that didnt work he had to go for the head.

[psalm7]

I do not think we will hear anymore facts that happend inside the car . It seems to me that it happened like the Officer said or it became a personal fight between the two and one lived . In the end Mr Brown put himself in the situation with behavior that had to be checked . For what ever reason he was on a crime spree robbing and walking in the road blocking traffic just challenging anyone to do something about it .

[Ruger480]

Do you take out the pepper spray or try to go at it hand to hand or do you take out the pistol? Its easy to sit on a message board safe at home and come to a conclusion, but if this man was coming for you Im sure you would whip out that pistol. He might just pick you up like Hulk Hogan and give you a good throw.

Well, since I'm not an LEO, if I were in the same situation I expect I'd be in jail right now on murder charges. Especially if I rolled up on someone walking in the middle of the street and told them to get the eff on the sidewalk and then shot them during the ensuing altercation.

The jury would probably look at it like I instigated the whole situation.

It doesn't work to try and view it from the standpoint of non LEO's, i.e. myself in that situation. I don't have the immunity (real or imagined) that the police do in those situations.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It is all fine to speculate and say IMHO - it's a good shoot.

I suggest we need a full investigation that does its best to determine what actually happened.

Eye witnesses are not to be taken at face value nor should they be discarded because you don't like their conclusion.

Saying that you would have - blah, blah - is not useful until the actual actions can be determined - if they ever can.

Interesting analysis on risk:

Focuses on what police face.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-w...es_share_ended

[44 AMP]

Just saw some "new" video on a news spot. They claimed "new video of the shooting" shot by a witness.

its not video of the shooting. It is video afterwards, showing an officer making a man go back behind the crime scene tape.

They explain the man is the uncle, who is trying to approach the body to see if it is his nephew. The body itself if NOT shown (blurred out). The blonde talking head on the video made a point of how the police are "keeping the family away from the body".

So sad that basic police SOP (securing the crime scene) is portrayed as that.

I wonder if she even knew the spin she put on it...or cared?

[gc70]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I wonder if she even knew the spin she put on it...or cared?

Sure, she knew -and cared- because drama and emotion get attention, which translates to better ratings. "Police protect the integrity of the crime scene" is not going to grab attention or get an emotional response from viewers like "keeping the family away from the body."

[DoubleDeuce 1]

I for one wish the press and the rest of the world would just let the pieces fall into place as they will. Let the system do what it was designed to do. We have a right to know what happened, and some may have a need to know. But we don't need to know right now.

I wonder what the caliber used in this incident was.

[Sarge]

I wonder what the caliber used in this incident was.

I can't answer that DD1... just don't know for sure.

[Pilot]

The following is not necessarily a response to your comments/questions. Many of us remember when law enforcement routinely patrolled in pairs with a partner.

It is no longer the norm and has not been so in years. I assume it is due to budget cuts or allowable budgets.

Many local, and state police budgets have increased dramatically over the last few decades due to more Federal money being pumped into them, often as bribes to focus on certain criminal activities, and with military equipment, hence the "militarized" look, and tactics. Often these tactics are now being used in response for average, relatively non-threatening calls. Instead of a uniformed officer or two showing up, you get a SWAT team with full auto weapons, military looking dress, and gear, and possibly an MRAP.

More, and more local law enforcement partners with DHS, and other Feds. They are incentivized to run up stats which is used to bargain for larger budgets, increase in personnel, and equipment, just like other government agencies, use it, or lose it is the normal attitude. Pretty disturbing if you ask me.

Where in the past, police may have cut people a break, today they are incentivized to get people into the "justice" system as much as possible as huge fees, fines, and then more justification for larger budgets occur.

[DoubleDeuce 1]

Pilot,

I don't see how you can make such a statement as that. What part of the country do you live in?

As far as budgets go, I can say for a fact, budgets are a reality that have to be dealt with no matter who you are or what you do. Another fact, at least in the part of the country where I live, budgets are taking hits like crazy. That translates to reduction in pay, BIG reductions in pay. That also means very little for maintaining equipment, providing training etc. Also, it means a drastic reduction in firearms training. A local department has now had to resort to using airsoft guns for firearms training on a regular basis. Other departments only have firearms training twice or maybe four times a year because of budgets. Budget cuts... and all the time the work load does not decrease.

I know for a fact there was a point in time when a local department was paying a dollar a round for handgun ammunition. That went on for several months. It has not gotten much better.

I also know for a fact some departments do not always supply officers with the firearms they may carry. A lot of officers elect to purchase and carry their own weapons because those supplied by the department(s) are very old and worn, some beyond repair. Weapons approved by some department(s) are not supplied, and as such are purchased by the individual officers.

Here is another fact: I know of a local department, fairly large, that for a long time over half of the sidearms carried on duty, were supplied and purchased by the officers. A large majority aslo purchased their own long guns.

Here is something to consider. When you go to work, how much does you "uniform" cost you? Uniforms are provided or compensated for to a degree. But consider stepping out into the world every day, putting on your "business suit" with a price tag of approx $200.00. And that is just the clothing, and what is visible.

Does the color of a piece of cloth, blue, green or black make it "militarized"? I don't think so. Like it or not, there are reasons for uniforms, of any color or cut.

People need to stop and think about these sorts of things. Monies that might go into an operating budget have been sidelined for "social" programs instead. It gets dumped into free cell phones, wifi, food stamps and bad schools that insist on turning out garbage students. The government has rewarded folks with money and other support for a "cash crop" of dependants, some of whom continually display an appetite for more stuff they believe they are owed.

I don't think this incident will be a call for firearms restrictions, and I hope not. I think the focus has been artfully diverted to something that has no bearing on the incident.

[kilimanjaro]

When a dozen terror teams go into a dozen shopping malls and start killing people by the dozens, I hope the cops have more than blue wool shirts and .38 revolvers to react with.

In Mumbai the city police had Lee-Enfield rifles until the Army got there. Lots of people died as a result of underwhelming equipment.

[Tom Servo]

Double Deuce summed up the situation rather well:

I for one wish the press and the rest of the world would just let the pieces fall into place as they will. Let the system do what it was designed to do. We have a right to know what happened, and some may have a need to know. But we don't need to know right now.

We've gone pretty far afield on this one. If useful data is released, we can open a new thread on the matter. In the meantime, this topic has pretty much run out of steam.