Yet this kind of thing is almost a weekly occurrence in America and exceedingly rare in the rest of the developed world. I'm not sure of the fact-checking, but apparently Saint Louis area police have used more bullets on citizens in the past two weeks than all of last year in Great Britain. Why is that? Legality aside, there has to be better ways to deal with these situations when there is no gun involved.jcity wrote:Seems pretty basic to me: don't attack and threaten police and you won't get killed by them. I'm sure more training to deal with mentally ill people is great, but this does appear to be a suicide by cop. I don't care what color the guy is.
- 8,155
- 1,868
I don't know, what tactics did they use?goat314 wrote:^ again the Colorado killer had automatic weapons and still living. What tactics did they use to subdue him?
The Bundy situation was completely different than this. The distance was far greater, the militia didn't pose the same sort of immediate danger.goat314 wrote:Bundy had 100s of militia men with him in Nevada, yet he is still living. The point is, if you are black, armed or unarmed, the cops feel it necessary to kill you if they feel slightly threatened. That is not a good defense. Where are the tasers? Why was it necessary for both cops to shoot him that many times? Why was it necessary to handcuff a dead man? Why was a necessary for them to get belligerent with community as if they lived in an occupied territory. This whole thing is insanity.
As for the handcuffs, the guy was potentially dangerous. Handcuffs first, check for a pulse second.
Attacking cops with a knife is not "slightly threatening".
- 5,433
Frankly, I think that's out of line. I've never seen anything here that compares to the likes of the racism (obvious or otherwise) that's readily apparent at STLtoday.com or other local media outlets in their comments sections. It's not tolerated here.goat314 wrote:I'm really disturbed that so many members on this board shrug this off like its nothing and I have to wonder if you guys would feel the same if the race and/or class of the actors were switched. Seriously disgusting!
The race or the class of the 'actors' doesn't matter to me. If you threaten a cop, you should be ready to accept your sentence.
That is not to say that cops should respond to every threat with lethal force, or that they shouldn't do more to defuse the situation before the use of lethal force, especially in cases like the north St. Louis where the subject was mentally ill. Obviously, there is also a lot of room for improvement in terms of the ways in which police relate to African-Americans and other minorities, and there is also the need to attract and retain more minority officers to have a police force that better reflects the community it serves in St. Louis, Ferguson, or any diverse community.
There are a lot of complex issues here with no simple solutions. However, there are also people who are bent on trying this case through print, broadcast, and social media despite a relative dearth of facts. If there is damning evidence that officers in one or both of these incidents acted inappropriately, by all means, punish them to the fullest extent of the law. However, I refuse to join the mob of people who believe police are 'guilty until proven innocent' in cases like these, and I am inclined to give the men and women who protect us the benefit of the doubt until there is proof that they are not deserving of it.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... med-police < Here's the article mentioned re: police shootings in UK. "Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero."
Obviously it's not a great comparison, as the article points out, given the vastly increased availability of firearms in the US to both cops and criminals. But that's a massive problem in and of itself. How people can deny that baffles me.
Whatever knife you wanna call it, it doesn't have the same lethal, instant killing potential as a gun. It could be dealt with differently. I doubt that cops relish killing people (though maybe some do), but if that's all they know to do perhaps police training should change.
Obviously it's not a great comparison, as the article points out, given the vastly increased availability of firearms in the US to both cops and criminals. But that's a massive problem in and of itself. How people can deny that baffles me.
Whatever knife you wanna call it, it doesn't have the same lethal, instant killing potential as a gun. It could be dealt with differently. I doubt that cops relish killing people (though maybe some do), but if that's all they know to do perhaps police training should change.
- 1,868
I dislike that sort of reporting. "Here's a comparison between two things, now granted they are completely different in a really important way but still, doesn't it make you think???" Well, it makes me think I wasted time on your dumb article, I guess. Yes, the US has a huge firearms problem; no, I don't think a worthless apples-to-oranges statistical comparison is worth commenting on.wustl_eng wrote:http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... med-police < Here's the article mentioned re: police shootings in UK. "Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero."
- 1,644
I always figured that if I tried to get buck with a cop or punched a cop or physically assualted a cop I may very well get shot. And If I even pretended like I was going after his gun I might get shot five times. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
- 1,868
That depends; have I never heard of "get buck with" because it's really old, or really new?leeharveyawesome wrote:I always figured that if I tried to get buck with a cop or punched a cop or physically assualted a cop I may very well get shot. And If I even pretended like I was going after his gun I might get shot five times. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
- 182
Uncle Buck? Paying for a prostitute with venison to get more bang for your buck?
In all seriousness, where does police provocation fit into all this on how Jaywalking is handled? http://www.walkscore.com/score/2974-cop ... s-mo-63136
In all seriousness, where does police provocation fit into all this on how Jaywalking is handled? http://www.walkscore.com/score/2974-cop ... s-mo-63136
- 5,433
I guess I'm really old-fashioned. I'd never respond to a cop's commands with anything besides, "Yes, sir". Also, I must concede I had to look "get buck with" up on The Google.MarkHaversham wrote:That depends; have I never heard of "get buck with" because it's really old, or really new?leeharveyawesome wrote:I always figured that if I tried to get buck with a cop or punched a cop or physically assualted a cop I may very well get shot. And If I even pretended like I was going after his gun I might get shot five times. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
- 190
Boy, I sure miss the days when cops were heroes and put the bad guys behind bars. Now they're just exterminators with extreme prejudice.
Troll alert.KerrytheKonstructor wrote:Boy, I sure miss the days when cops were heroes and put the bad guys behind bars. Now they're just exterminators with extreme prejudice.
I've stayed out of this conversation for the very simple reason that no one knows all the facts and no one knows what actually happened with the Michael Brown case. Every piece of evidence that has come out has been used by both sides to strengthen their claims. I have my opinion on what happened, but since that is also just guesswork done from the comfort of my living room, I will keep it to myself.
However, what happened in North St. Louis is on video. I think it's pretty clear that the cops were justified in their action. A few responses to complaints I have seen here:
"The man shot didn't pose an immediate threat to the police officers."
Obviously this man was causing a disturbing scene, otherwise you wouldn't have anyone videotaping him. Also notice that there were a number of individuals watching, even before the police showed up, and all were keeping their distance. When the police rolled up, he started to advance aggressively.
"He wasn't within distance of using the knife so the cops didn't have to shoot him."
Why would the cops wait for him to get within range of using his knife? The man clearly took aggressive movement towards the police, who were in a defensive position, after they instructed him multiple times to put the knife down. You really think it's that easy to wrestle a knife away from a man? You think it's a guarantee that an officer would have been successful in disarming him before being stabbed? Allowing him to get within distance of effectively using his knife actually puts the perpetrator at an advantage, as he now has a lethal weapon that is much more easily wielded in hand-to-hand combat than a sidearm that is normally fired with the arms extended.
"They should have shot him in the leg or fired warning shots or something."
As someone above mentioned, shooting a handgun is a lot more difficult in real life than it seems in the movies. You are trained to shoot center-mass for a reason. It's the largest and, on any target but particularly a moving target, the most stable of any target position on the body. Even a hit in the leg could be ineffective at stopping him. More than that, shooting at the legs presents itself with a much higher likelihood that the officer misses, which leads to a much higher likelihood of stray bullets and ricochets and therefore the potential of harm to innocent bystanders.
"They didn't have to fire that many times."
If an officer fires his weapon it's a matter of last resort (or should be, anyways, as that is what the whole Michael Brown case is about). Therefore, the whole intent is to stop him. Can one bullet do this? Of course, but it's not guaranteed to. I also imagine the adrenaline and stress is as high as ever when a man is charging at you with a knife and you have made the decision to shoot him. That is not a decision that one should make halfheartedly. I'm not saying that cops should empty their magazines on all occasions, I'm saying that if indeed it comes down to them pulling the trigger then I'm betting they're making sure that the reason they are doing so, to put the man down, is fulfilled.
- 219
shimmy wrote: Troll alert.
I've stayed out of this conversation for the very simple reason that no one knows all the facts and no one knows what actually happened with the Michael Brown case. Every piece of evidence that has come out has been used by both sides to strengthen their claims. I have my opinion on what happened, but since that is also just guesswork done from the comfort of my living room, I will keep it to myself.
- 8,155
Wise course of action. We'll just have to see what the ballistics and other forensics say and hope that they corroborate the essential storyline of a number of named witnesses or the supposed account of a rush at the officer. I thought the named eyewitness account of a described hands in the air surrender and sort of stumble towards the officer was interesting. And I believe all named witnesses have said the officer was shooting at a fleeing MB.... if true, that's very troubling itself imo; again, if anyone knows protocol on when that might be appropriate I'd appreciate it.shimmy wrote: I've stayed out of this conversation for the very simple reason that no one knows all the facts and no one knows what actually happened with the Michael Brown case. Every piece of evidence that has come out has been used by both sides to strengthen their claims. I have my opinion on what happened, but since that is also just guesswork done from the comfort of my living room, I will keep it to myself.
- 215
If I have a gun on my person and someone is threatening me with a knife you better believe I'm going to shoot them before they get close enough to stab me, and I think most people know (deep down) that they would probably do the same. It would be an extremely frightening situation. Of course police brutality is bad and no one likes dickhead cops, but come on now. Some of this pontificating is bordering on the absurd.
- 5,433
Since none of the shots came from behind, was Michael Brown running backwards? We don't know much, and I think we'd all be wise to follow Shimmy's lead and keep speculation to a minimum. However, the independent autopsy contradicts those specific eyewitness accounts.I thought the named eyewitness account of a described hands in the air surrender and sort of stumble towards the officer was interesting. And I believe all named witnesses have said the officer was shooting at a fleeing MB...
That's putting it kindly. One thing I think we need to remember as we come to our own conclusions about what's appropriate and excessive force: It is very easy for any of us to read an account, to watch a video, or to play a scenario out in our minds, and come to the conclusion that a police officer used inappropriate and/or excessive force. It's a bit more difficult, even with years of training and experience in dealing with life and death situations, to be confronted with someone who poses a threat and to make a split-second decision so they can protect themselves and the innocent citizens they are sworn to protect as well.Some of this pontificating is bordering on the absurd.
- 8,155
Say what now? The experts at the press conference said that a couple of the gun shot wounds (arm and hand) could have from the front or back. The younger one specifically stated that the one to the arm could have come from behind and caused Michael to jerk around consistent with some of the eyewitness accounts. Plus, even if all the shots that hit Michael did indeed come from the front that in no way means that there weren't other shots fired but missed. I thought the two experts were very measured and professional and said more information was needed to make a final report.threeonefour wrote:Since none of the shots came from behind, was Michael Brown running backwards? We don't know much, and I think we'd all be wise to follow Shimmy's lead and keep speculation to a minimum. However, the independent autopsy contradicts those specific eyewitness accounts.I thought the named eyewitness account of a described hands in the air surrender and sort of stumble towards the officer was interesting. And I believe all named witnesses have said the officer was shooting at a fleeing MB...
- 5,433
Perhaps. I personally find it to be a bit of a stretch, hence my comment. I also thought these professionals told the Brown family and their supporters what they wanted to hear. Again, it's just my $.02. Your mileage may vary.roger wyoming II wrote:Say what now? The experts at the press conference said that a couple of the gun shot wounds (arm and hand) could have from the front or back. The younger one specifically stated that the one to the arm could have come from behind and caused Michael to jerk around consistent with some of the eyewitness accounts. Plus, even if all the shots that hit Michael did indeed come from the front that in no way means that there weren't other shots fired but missed. I thought the two experts were very measured and professional and said more information was needed to make a final report.
- 8,155
Fine, but I generally don't let comments like yours that flat out stated something critical said x when clearly it said y go unchallenged.threeonefour wrote:[Perhaps. I personally find it to be a bit of a stretch, hence my comment.
Side note about the Governor of Missouri/Missourah:threeonefour wrote:Let's not forget, either, Nixon's ineffective leadership from the minute the news traveled beyond Greater St. Louis. Lt. Gov. Kinder legitimately criticized Nixon's words and actions. I think that leadership breakdown needs to be addressed further.
For a very long while the Governor of our state has come from the rural areas. It almost seems a requirement to get elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Go ... f_Missouri
-Governor Teasdale (served 1977 to 1981) was the last Missouri governor from a major city (Kansas City)
-the last Governor from St. Louis was Henry Caulfield who served from 1929 to 1933.
Seems interesting.
It seems like there are several different things lumped in the crime thread, and since it is such a beast, maybe it makes sense to break it up into a couple different threads:
1) One for discussion of specific crime events
2) One for discussion of crime trends in STL
3) One for discussion of broader social factors and research on the subject.
Maybe it's impossible to separate these things. I suspect some posters care much more about one of the three, and would support breaking them up. Or not. Thoughts?
1) One for discussion of specific crime events
2) One for discussion of crime trends in STL
3) One for discussion of broader social factors and research on the subject.
Maybe it's impossible to separate these things. I suspect some posters care much more about one of the three, and would support breaking them up. Or not. Thoughts?
- 8,155
^ good question. I was thinking maybe a separate Ferguson and/or Mike Brown case thread(s).
- 1,868
Mike Brown/Ferguson is a singular event that probably deserves its own thread, but otherwise I don't think the Crime thread generally gets so much traffic that it requires splitting.
Racial Segregation and Divides in Minneapolis:
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014 ... images.php
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014 ... images.php