Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

[PhilsFan]

I can't find a link to it at the moment, but the DOJ released a report on the Ferguson Police Department and surprise! They're really, really fucking racist.

[corianderstem]

[deep]

facts are facts

a black criminal is more likely to commit a crime than the average white person

what are the police supposed to do?

[DaveC]

BREAKING NEWS:
Often the police can be racist

[the iron horse]

You can read the DOJs full report here.

Officer Darren Wilson cleared by the Justice Department - The Washington Post

[cobl04]

Just speaking personally here (and not necessarily about Mike Brown), I don't give a fuck if a cop is cleared. I don't think there should be any circumstance where a policeman can be justified in shooting to kill. Shoot to injure if your life is in danger, sure. If you are in some sort of scuffle, your life is in danger and you shoot to injure and the result is death, then that is obviously more of a grey area, but it disgusts me that a person's life can be taken at the hands of a policeman designed to protect and serve. You don't know that person's circumstances. You don't know what's driving them at that moment. People fuck up but people can be rehabilitated, people can learn and modify their behaviours.

I'm sure you all saw the footage of the homeless man being killed by police in LA. How can you justify killing a man from that? Failures by 3 Governments Preceded Homeless Man's Death - ABC News

Even here, a young woman was killed by police in Sydney a week or two ago, she was at a Hungry Jacks and brandishing a knife and was by reports quite aggressive. BUT IT NO CIRCUMSTANCE should that result in the woman being killed. Maybe her home life was fucked up. Maybe she had fallen into drugs. Whatever. Now she is dead, and there is no chance that she can turn her life around.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Just speaking personally here (and not necessarily about Mike Brown), I don't give a fuck if a cop is cleared. I don't think there should be any circumstance where a policeman can be justified in shooting to kill. Shoot to injure if your life is in danger, sure. If you are in some sort of scuffle, your life is in danger and you shoot to injure and the result is death, then that is obviously more of a grey area, but it disgusts me that a person's life can be taken at the hands of a policeman designed to protect and serve. You don't know that person's circumstances. You don't know what's driving them at that moment. People fuck up but people can be rehabilitated, people can learn and modify their behaviours.

I'm sure you all saw the footage of the homeless man being killed by police in LA. How can you justify killing a man from that? Failures by 3 Governments Preceded Homeless Man's Death - ABC News

Even here, a young woman was killed by police in Sydney a week or two ago, she was at a Hungry Jacks and brandishing a knife and was by reports quite aggressive. BUT IT NO CIRCUMSTANCE should that result in the woman being killed. Maybe her home life was fucked up. Maybe she had fallen into drugs. Whatever. Now she is dead, and there is no chance that she can turn her life around.

I wrote a longer response to this but decided not to post it.

My only reply: You don't know circumstances that police often face.

[cobl04]

Please post it! I'm sure I'm not fully aware.

[DaveC]

The cop/soldier/agent shooting the bad guy in the leg to take him down is a movie thing. In reality, you want to maximize your chances of hitting on your first shot. By far the easiest place to hit on a human is the middle of the chest, which is why (in the military at least) people are taught to always aim for the centre of mass unless there's a good reason not too, such as an obstructed shot or if the target is holding a shield/hostage, etc.

You don't want to risk shooting someone in the leg because they won't necessarily go down automatically. With a 9 mm pistol bullet, yeah they'll probably drop but there's absolutely no guarantee. With a .50 round, you'll blow their leg clean off and kill them anyway. With a 5.56 mm round God help you if you hit them in the leg because they aren't going anywhere. Even if they do go down and they're armed, their arms still work and it's likely they'll still be able to shoot or stab. The upper legs aren't really good to shoot at if you're looking to just wound someone anyways because with the arteries in your thighs you're more likely to bleed out, which defeats the purpose. So all you can really shoot at anyways is the calf or knee if you're looking to wound someone.

So you can try to aim for the arm that's holding the weapon. But arms are very small, very quick moving targets. Limbs in general are on most people. They also move much more erratically and unpredictably than a torso would, since they have joints.

You'd probably be nervous as hell too, which without combat experience means your aim is shaky to begin with. Unless you're an especially good shot, you're almost certain to miss. Now you've wasted ammo and if you're in an urban environment potentially fired into anyone standing behind the target. The target hasn't been hit and now is much more likely to return fire or attack if they haven't already. You have to take a split second to adjust your own aim, which could be just that split second the target needs to shoot you in the middle of the chest like you should have done to them in the first place.

Unless there is a damn good reason, you always always always aim for centre of mass. This is why they can't just simply shoot to wound.

[bobsaget77]

Well this a disturbing story.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pea...id-drugs-guns/


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Please post it! I'm sure I'm not fully aware.

Well in America a lot of fucking people have guns.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by DaveC

The cop/soldier/agent shooting the bad guy in the leg to take him down is a movie thing. In reality, you want to maximize your chances of hitting on your first shot. By far the easiest place to hit on a human is the middle of the chest, which is why (in the military at least) people are taught to always aim for the centre of mass unless there's a good reason not too, such as an obstructed shot or if the target is holding a shield/hostage, etc.

You don't want to risk shooting someone in the leg because they won't necessarily go down automatically. With a 9 mm pistol bullet, yeah they'll probably drop but there's absolutely no guarantee. With a .50 round, you'll blow their leg clean off and kill them anyway. With a 5.56 mm round God help you if you hit them in the leg because they aren't going anywhere. Even if they do go down and they're armed, their arms still work and it's likely they'll still be able to shoot or stab. The upper legs aren't really good to shoot at if you're looking to just wound someone anyways because with the arteries in your thighs you're more likely to bleed out, which defeats the purpose. So all you can really shoot at anyways is the calf or knee if you're looking to wound someone.

So you can try to aim for the arm that's holding the weapon. But arms are very small, very quick moving targets. Limbs in general are on most people. They also move much more erratically and unpredictably than a torso would, since they have joints.

You'd probably be nervous as hell too, which without combat experience means your aim is shaky to begin with. Unless you're an especially good shot, you're almost certain to miss. Now you've wasted ammo and if you're in an urban environment potentially fired into anyone standing behind the target. The target hasn't been hit and now is much more likely to return fire or attack if they haven't already. You have to take a split second to adjust your own aim, which could be just that split second the target needs to shoot you in the middle of the chest like you should have done to them in the first place.

Unless there is a damn good reason, you always always always aim for centre of mass. This is why they can't just simply shoot to wound.

Yea...

You can argue about the racial dynamics that lead to incidents, but in life threatening situations where a gun has to be used, shooting for limbs is not a viable option and will actually raise the likelihood that an innocent bystander will be shot.

The debate needs to be centered around the socioeconomic issues that create the poverty that leads to higher crime rates, and our country's sheer inability to pass any sort of viable anti-gun legislation, and not around asking rank and file police officers to fire their weapons like their Hollywood counterparts and military sharpshooters.

[BoMac]

Caution: that video is VERY disturbing.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/08...html?referrer=

[deep]

Without that video it would have been a justified shooting because the officer would have said the guy resisted arrest and was reaching into his waistband.

[corianderstem]

Fine, if the cops don't get cameras (that they leave turned on), the rest of the world will make sure everyone sees what happens.

What an awful thing.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That's utterly disgusting. Thankfully he's already been charged.

[Diemen]

Hopefully he's also convicted. Sad to say that, even with the video evidence, it's not a given.

Also, they should charge his partner with aiding and abetting for not even batting an eye when Slager goes back, picks up the taser, and plants it next to the body. And Slager does it so nonchalantly, too. Makes you wonder how commonplace that is.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Makes you wonder how commonplace that is.

many people in minority communities would say "often." i'm thankful we now have social media and a citizenry armed with cameras who can now substantiate these claims that have been made seemingly forever. minorities who have had to deal with cops like this aren't making it up.

[deep]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/ferguson-election/

Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

A lot of changes and new information since Michael Brown died.

Some will say he would still be alive if he only obeyed the law (officer) and Ferguson was a better run city then, than it will ever be again.

[corianderstem]

And then here, as with the man who was shot outside the gas station in St Louis/Ferguson (apologies, cannot remember the poor man's name), they shoot a guy and then just leave him lying there, not trying to administer aid. Or even call for a fucking ambulance.

Even if in either of those cases the shooting was justified, how the hell would they not react to get medical care for the suspect?