Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
 
brandnewinformation_zps00cec44a.gif
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?

First things first, cori. After you've fired 8 shots at your victim and he crumples to the ground, you've got to make sure you yell at him to put his hands behind his back as he breathes his last breaths (seriously, that is some fucked up theatrical bullshit right there). Then you have to make sure you plant a weapon on him. Then you've got to allow enough time to formulate some variation of "I felt threatened" for the official report. Then try to remember if you have the police union rep's number in your cell phone.

Your victim isn't going anywhere. He can wait 5 or 10 minutes for first ai--- shit, he's dead.





:gah:
 
The person who set it up has also set up a Twitter account, and every tweet is directed at trying to enlist some politician or news media organization's support. What gets me is that they all say one of two things:

"He deserves to be honored for his service"

or

"Murder is too harsh a conviction for one mis-step"

Are you fucking kidding me? A "mis-step" would be him forgetting to check for warrants during a traffic stop and letting someone wanted for robbery go with just a ticket. Shooting an unarmed, fleeing man 8 times in the back and then planting a weapon on him as he lays there dying is not a fucking "mis-step" for christs sake! I can't help but wonder, since he almost certainly would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for the lucky circumstance of someone happening to film the event, what else this guy has gotten away with during his career.

But I totally get the first point. I mean, that Air Force colonel Russell Williams here in Canada did rape a bunch of women and murder (at least) two of them while breaking into dozens of houses and stealing the womens' (and not uncommonly, little girls') underwear, but he did serve for 20+ years before that and even flew the Prime Minister around a couple times, so clearly that's the important thing here. Guys like that should be praised for serving so honorably, really.

Holy fuck, this world makes me despair to such an extreme level sometimes. :sigh:
 
You can find a couple articles on the shooting from BEFORE the video as released. They portray the cop as a 'hero'.

Police accounts of the moments that led to Scott’s death weren’t credible in Samuel Scott’s eyes.
“He’s not a violent guy — never seen him argue with anybody. I just can’t see it,” Samuel Scott said.
A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.
That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer.
The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged.
It was not immediately clear how many times Scott had been shot or where on his body he was wounded.

Officers tried to revive him prior to the arrival of paramedics, police said. But their efforts were in vain. He was pronounced dead at the scene, authorities said. Police did not immediately specify whether he was armed.

and here he is casually planting the tazer

DTYSXXC.gif
 
It's the officer's body language that's so disturbing to me. So casual. Like, meh, I'm sure this N-word has done something.
 
It's the officer's body language that's so disturbing to me. So casual. Like, meh, I'm sure this N-word has done something.


This is what boggles my mind.

If I had just killed someone, regardless of if it was in cold blood or 100% totally justifiable "he had a knife to my throat"-style self-defence, I would be so blasted with adrenaline and anxiety and just sheer horror that I would at the very least be jumpy and panicky. This guy just goes about his business like shooting somebody eight times was no more meaningful than taking a shit.
 
Back
Top Bottom