The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 18, 2014, 03:22 AM   #76
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
I haven't paid too much attention to this b/c until more info come out it is just a lot of heated speculation.

On gang signs...
I lived in a small midwest city with limited gang activity for a bit.
At one point I was shown some training material related to the local enforcement of anti-gang regulations including photographs of gang signs. It was ridiculous. It was if they crammed every a picture of every sign from every gang in the US onto a few grainy pages. Almost any gesture imaginable was reasonably close to one of the represented gang signs.

Any police department, no matter the size is either stupid or ashamed of their incompetence if they aren't using dash cams at a minimum. One or two avoided lawsuits will pay for body cams for a large department. Of course, these officers were pulling in mad overtime and trying out all their surplus toys, so they probably prefer it that way.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 05:33 AM   #77
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 715
Coming out that the Governor ordered National Guard resources to the area to assist. Links below.


Quote:
Originally Posted by governor.mo.gov
Following coordinated attacks on civilians and law enforcement, Governor Nixon signs executive order directing Missouri National Guard resources to Ferguson
Source:

https://governor.mo.gov/news/archive...or-nixon-signs

Executive order:

https://governor.mo.gov/sites/defaul...er%2014-09.pdf

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; August 18, 2014 at 05:40 AM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 06:34 AM   #78
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,089
Autopsy report shows Brown was shot six times in the front of his body:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...=tw-share&_r=1


Eyewitness account:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/1686...uson-shooting/
thallub is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 08:31 AM   #79
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 496
The decriptions of the autopsy diagram don't make sense to me.
Quote:
Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body. But he has not yet seen the X-rays showing where the bullets were found, which would clarify the autopsy results. Nor has he had access to witness and police statements.

Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds.
One bullet left 5 wounds???

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...ml?ref=us&_r=0

He was not shot in the back, so the report that he was running away when shot was false.
Quote:
Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.
Can someone help interpret the diagram?
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

Give me liberty or give me death.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 08:34 AM   #80
NateKirk
Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 77
I really hope the news coverage about police militarization starts to make people think. I believe it it will shift the focus of gun control at least somewhat and maybe get people to think that the second amendment is still relevant.

Also if the police were to start a violent war with people... Their body armor is only made to stop pistol and assault rifle rounds, I doubt it could stop a full size hunting cartridge. There's a reason people didn't wear BA before Vietnam.
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".”

― --Thomas Jefferson
NateKirk is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 08:56 AM   #81
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateKirk
There's a reason people didn't wear BA before Vietnam.
Huh????

What's the tie-in to body armor and Vietnam? We didn't have body armor in Vietnam, we had flak jackets. That's ALL they were -- they were intended to offer some protection against flying shrapnel. They were in no sense whatsoever "body armor."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 09:03 AM   #82
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 618
I like what Doug Wylie from PoliceOne says about this.

Neither the initial story from Brown's friends nor the initial story from the Ferguson PD make any sense, so why don't we just wait peacefully for the investigations to finish.
Madcap_Magician is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 09:09 AM   #83
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,863
Flak jackets were used in the later part of the Korean War, and first used in WWII for bomber crews in limited issue.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 09:10 AM   #84
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
What's the tie-in to body armor and Vietnam? We didn't have body armor in Vietnam, we had flak jackets.
Other than a time point, I also don't get the tie-in to Vietnam, but we did have body armor. It certainly wasn't widely issued, but it was there TO issue, even in World War II - Wikipedia mentions they were first used on Okinawa.

Quote:
Neither the initial story from Brown's friends nor the initial story from the Ferguson PD make any sense, so why don't we just wait peacefully for the investigations to finish.
I agree with that, however we do have a somewhat partial autopsy released that makes the statements about being shot:
  • 10 times
  • in the back
  • with his hands up
a little contradicted.

Last edited by JimDandy; August 18, 2014 at 09:20 AM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 09:14 AM   #85
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,994
Personally, I think the "we were outgunned" excuses went out the window some years ago when fully automatic weapons started being surplussed out of Federal/military coffers and started routinely showing up in increasingly large quantities in even small-town police departments.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

Last edited by Mike Irwin; August 18, 2014 at 09:20 AM.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 09:19 AM   #86
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,994
Flak jackets are, by definition, body armor.

Actual flak jackets were developed for aviators, most notably bomber crews, and used steel plating to stop shell fragments.

Ballistic vests of the type used in Vietnam largely did away with the steel, making them flak jackets in name only.

Some versions used, I think, ceramic plates, early versions of today's cermat, others used fiberglass plates.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 10:21 AM   #87
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,321
TV ME's solve things in an hour. The real world takes somewhat longer, days, sometimes weeks or more.

So, now we have a "witness" saying shot in the back when his hands were up...." and a certified medical examiner saying "shot in the front", but being somewhat vague on how many bullets and which ones did what, when.

The autopsy can give us the position of the body at the moment of impact, and bullet paths, but it cannot give us definitive reasons for the position. It takes other evidence to establish that clearly, as there is virtually no position a human body can take that does not have at least two different explanations possible as to the reason for it.

Its a mess, and there are going to be people who will stick to the shot in the back while surrendering story no matter WHAT the autopsy shows. After all, its the same govt doing the autopsy, and it could be a cover up, right?

The same folk who insist on calling the 6'4" 290lb subject a "boy" are unlikely to believe the autopsy report is unbiased, UNLESS it favors their version of events, in which case, it will become gospel to them.

I can see being upset and angry, even protesting, but using the event as justification for rioting before the system can even clearly ascertain the true facts of the event is NOT a reasoned act, unless the reason is to steal.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 10:30 AM   #88
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,778
As I see it, when people are throwing Molotov cocktails ..... that's not a protest ..... that's a riot. Arson and pillage are not legitimate forms of protest. Policing is over, and the National Guard, with whatever level of force necessary to restore order, is called for.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 10:38 AM   #89
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,892
There's about three different groups involved in this.

1) The Looters. They're in it to break things and steal stuff and they have a reasonable expectation of getting away with it. The initial spate of looting a week ago was the worst of it (the Walmart ended up suffering a $1 million loss between lost inventory and damage), but there's been some here and there since.

2) The Rioters. There's a bit of overlap between this group and the looters, but the focus of this group is less on stealing/breaking than it is on confronting the police for past wrongs, both perceived and real. They're not so interested in raiding convenience stores, very interested in insulting cops and throwing things at them.

3) The Protestors. This group really is peaceful. This is by far the largest group. They want to make sure this doesn't get swept under the rug. Problem is, the other two groups use them for cover.

Groups 1 and 2 are by and large not made up of Ferguson residents (those residents I've talked to- and I have talked to several- will tell you this). Some have even traveled from out of state (one person in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article a day or two ago was revealed to have come from Nashville, TN just so he could curse at the officers).

Problem is, how do you separate groups 1 and 2 from #3? The protestors have a legitimate first amendment right to protest. The others know they can move in and out of this group to cause mayhem, much to the consternation of the police and the protestors.

Is it legal to restrict this area to residents only? How can the police allow protesting while keeping a lid on everything else? I'm not sure the National Guard will find it easier to do this than the Missouri Highway Patrol. Ferguson PD, and St. Louis County PD have.

There is a rising number of shop owners using firearms to deter the looters and other troublemakers from their own establishments... that may be part of the answer. But not every owner can or will do that. Nor will the police or National Guard necessarily keep allowing it.
Technosavant is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 11:09 AM   #90
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technosavant
Nor will the police or National Guard necessarily keep allowing it.
I don't understand your statement, TS. 2A in Missouri is heavily protected, even in a "state of emergency", as I noted earlier.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

Give me liberty or give me death.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 11:20 AM   #91
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
One bullet left 5 wounds???
That's possible. Bullet hits an arm, exits in fragments and strikes other parts of the body.
thallub is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 11:36 AM   #92
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,892
Quote:
I don't understand your statement, TS. 2A in Missouri is heavily protected, even in a "state of emergency", as I noted earlier.
It is indeed protected. They can't take their guns. But they could force them to leave. Or not allow them in at all (depending on when they arrive, where they're headed to, that sort of thing).

It remains to be seen what, exactly, the national guard will be doing that the police haven't done. It seems to me that calling in the guard is a bit of a vindication of some of what the Ferguson and STL County PDs have been doing... while their initial heavy handedness may have been unnecessary, there is a bit more needed down there than teddy bears and singalongs. That works fine with the protestors. Not so much with the looters and rioters.
Technosavant is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 12:36 PM   #93
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,863
AFAIK, the autopsy results just released were from the private autopsy funded by the family's attorney. The official autopsy hasn't been released, to my knowledge. You can expect the private findings to be deliberately vague to present a case for ambiguity later in the press, and court.

There will also be a Federal autopsy. I expect the findings there to be as acceptable to the segment of the public using this event for their own purposes as the autopsies of the Roswell Alien in 1947 or JFK in 1963.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 12:40 PM   #94
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
You do know the JFK autopsy was thoroughly bungled according to pretty much every forensic examiner on record as it was performed by naval doctors who were not trained in forensics. If the official autopsy on this is as bad I expect there will be a good bit of outrage.
Roswell just shows the air force isn't any better trained than the navy.

We have all seen situations like this so many times where wild stories are flying from both sides. The family always says the "victim" was a gentle giant. The officers always say the "suspect" was on PCP. A photo on facebook proves little. I am sure there are many white suburban kids who pick their nose in between pulls in WOW dungeons with such pictures on facebook. None of this is reliable.

Everyone always says the trouble makers are from another group or city. Arrest records following riots aren't all that convincing.

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; August 18, 2014 at 12:56 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 12:49 PM   #95
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead0922
One bullet left 5 wounds???... Can someone help interpret the diagram?
Read the NY Times text closely. One shot went through the right eye at a steep downward angle (assuming Mr. Brown was standing), traveled through the face, presumably went through the mouth, exited through the jaw, and re-entered at the collarbone. My hunch is that Dr. Baden is describing each major structure damaged by this bullet as a separate wound.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 03:54 PM   #96
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,778
The president was just on the radio ..... mentioned protecting "Constitutional Rights" including the "Right to Free Speech" and "Freedom of Assembly" ..... yet in the same breath, spoke against "carrying guns".

Picks and chooses, does he not?

We have the rule of men, and not of Law.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 07:11 PM   #97
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
You do know the JFK autopsy was thoroughly bungled according to pretty much every forensic examiner on record as it was performed by naval doctors who were not trained in forensics.
IIRC, at that time, there was no specific federal statute making it unlawful to kill the president. That's why Oswald was arrested on state charges of murder. It was unlawful under state law to remove the body from Texas before an autopsy and release by the coroner.

The private autopsy was done by NYC's former chief medical examiner so he has some credibility. My understanding, though, is that he has not reviewed the x-rays taken at the official autopsy.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 07:14 PM   #98
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 499
No one likes their own kind being shot or killed by government agents that aren't their own kind. If you have strong support for what the police in Ferguson did after the shooting do you also support what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge, or what could have happened with Clive Bundy in Nevada?

There is no excuse for looting and rioting, and I sympathize with those who have to balance a response with the freedom to assemble and protest. But it seems to me that this is still a scenario that requires us to at least question authority. Tactics and equipment that we developed for Iraq and Afghanistan are at play now in the United States. That includes the use of drones, they just aren't armed- yet.
Mainah is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 07:45 PM   #99
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 680
Quote:
If you have strong support for what the police in Ferguson did after the shooting do you also support what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge, or what could have happened with Clive Bundy in Nevada?
This. Also important to note there was no rioting, looting, or other communal unrest in response to those (McVeigh and the LV couple shooters were motivated individuals, not hordes of people). I think one could also easily argue that authorities were farther 'off base' leading up to those incidents than what we have here (a questionable defensive shoot under possibly profiling-initiated circumstances, but hardly a flagrant and gross rights violation let alone an execution). Certainly nothing rising to the level of outrage (which somehow consistently goes unregistered) when an officer ND kills a suspect subdued at gunpoint.

Quote:
IIRC, at that time, there was no specific federal statute making it unlawful to kill the president.
To be honest, why should there be? If I'm killed out of state, I don't get the case extradited to my home, it remains at the scene, doesn't it? If I am arrested for hollow point bullets in NJ, can I expect my homestate consulate to work to have me tried in the county of my residence? Murder is already illegal, and at the time punishable by death (I imagine Texas was even more diligent in executions at that time) so the means to justice were already sufficient; why the special 'rules for me, not for thee?' Becuz, govermint wanted the revenge for themselves (and one has to wonder if the investigation might have been more efficient if treated as an ordinary crime, as opposed to something warranting the full resources of a nation)

Quote:
There is no excuse for looting and rioting, and I sympathize with those who have to balance a response with the freedom to assemble and protest. But it seems to me that this is still a scenario that requires us to at least question authority. Tactics and equipment that we developed for Iraq and Afghanistan are at play now in the United States. That includes the use of drones, they just aren't armed- yet.
If local authorities were limited with an understanding that the NG can, and should be called in when things get beyond the police mission of routine maintenance and enforcement of laws, they would have no need to super-size their kit, and the NG would implement a brief, swift crackdown on openly violent actors before relinquishing command, limiting the corrosive effect of harsh military enforcement on the populace. Instead, we have police slowly ramp up the harsh enforcement in kind with the looters, and retain their gear/tactics/mindset at reduced but ever-present levels thereafter.

1-Drones for observation, because officers can't be everywhere, are expensive, and want to go home safe
2-Automated drones for surveillance, because officers can't be everywhere, are expensive, and want to go home safe
3-Strategic non-lethal drones for ingress and building clearning, because officers can't do every job, are expensive, and want to go home safe
4-Tactical sniping platforms for hostage/siege situations, because officers aren't bulletproof, are expensive, and want to go home safe
5-Assisted sniping platforms, because police are not perfect shots, perfect shots are expensive to train, and officers want to go home safe
6-Automated enforcement drones, because officers are expensive to train, can't be expected to know the multitude of laws on the books, are not invulnerable, and want to go home safe
7-Officers finally get to go home safe, for good.

Part of me wonders how the whole begging for budget increases dynamic is going to change when police officers are barely involved in day-to-day enforcement. Will the choice finally be based on whether citizens desire stronger and stronger enforcement (as opposed to a guilt trip), officials' lies about a fictitious crime wave (see: now), or an institutionally-fostered psychological tendency toward dependence and helplessness that leaves the populace perpetually terrified of nameless evils requiring ever more resources to combat? Or will we have simply voted to give funding/allocating authority to computers by then? I for one, welcome our new Killbot overlords; they can't possibly do a worse job than any other system that's been tried

TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old August 18, 2014, 08:07 PM   #100
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 499
McVeigh may have been motivated, but he sure wasn't part of an individual effort. Or one that took place in a simple attempt to get a free tv or in a quick and emotional response. He worked and planned his response, with some help. Isn't an excessive reaction bound to create more of the same?
Mainah is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14560 seconds with 7 queries