Police Power and Racial Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri

[Gameface]

One has to also look at the amount of time that lapsed form the first shot to the last shot. Also the time between shots. All of the shots are in extremely quick succession in this case. They did not shoot him 3-4 times, wait then shoot him 2 more then wait and shoot him another 3-4 times. They shot all the rounds within what 3-5 seconds? That is insanely fast in real time when a man is coming at you with a knife. Especially after the warned him repeatedly to show his hands and drop the knife. The man then advances on one of the officers and when he is within 4-5 feet.

I have watched this with an ex-officer and he stated two things.

1. 21 foot rule for an individual with a weapon. Cops don't want them within 21 feet. This man was entering lounging distance and was 5 feet(?) away.

2. The cuffing after the shooting, that is training and procedure. Officers shoot to eliminate the threat he said and cuffing is part of that. He then cited officers that failed to cuff a suspect that had been shot and end up getting killed with the suspect grabs their gun as they approach. Thsi is also why the other officer has his gun trtained on the suspect while his partner cuffs the suspect.

I thought the cuffing part was interesting.

Now I have not counted the bullets fired but 9 is being used in this thread. Well we have two shooters. So that is 4.5 rounds per officer, less rounds then it took to kill Mr. Brown (6).

Each officer is independently acting to end the threat. Not waiting for their partner to do so.

I see this as an intentional suicide by cop. This man put the officers into a position where they had to act, they did so. I would not even have them charged with a crime. There will be, and should be, an investigation into the shooting however.

FWIW I have heard this 21 foot rule many many times. A man with a knife can close 21 feet and stab you before even a trained person can draw and fire their gun. Many people think gun trumps knife all the time, but it's just not true.

 

[ema]

I know America is a police state and the citizens have been taught to accept them and their powers/privileges so what just happens in that video may be seem sensible to Americans but it's just way too much for me. I'm not even going to argue about it and the circumstances of the incident because I know we are on totally different plates here.

I've been reading, watching and listening all the pro-cops arguments about this incident over the internet for the last few hours and no, none of them made my mind even slightly move towards the shooting cops. I hate the thing in that video with my whole mind, hearth and soul. And nothing can change my mind that it's a straight up murder.

Call me biased.

 

[JAZZGASM]

My problem with body cams is cost and perception. Hypothetically, one for every cop in this country would cost billions upon billions I would think. And virtually every state is already in massive debt. I also think every single act caught on camera would be scrutinized and cops would be held under the most ridiculous microscope, and in turn, there would be more widespread hate for law enforcement than there already is.

It depends on how you look at it. What about the cost of guns, uniforms, etc. I think a camera should be a necessary component. Many police forces installed cameras in cars or on officers and changed policies that previously required two officers at every incident. That saves a lot of money.

And yes, cops that do stupid **** will get scrutinized, but I'm sorry, that risk comes with the added power and responsibility. A cop that shoots someone gets deference over the common citizen that does the same. Often when they are the only witness. (think Geist in SLC). A body cam would require officers to be prudent and reasonable. And if they aren't, there needs to be consequences.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I tend to think that round choice is over-hyped. 9mm rounds are not low power or ineffective at all, especially +p varieties.

Law enforcement agencies have tried .40cal and .45acp, the FBI even tried 10mm, then returned to 9mm. It's a damn good round, if you ask me.

You start shooting a .357 and that first shot that misses the mark will be your best one as the next few end up going high. 9mm is good for follow up shots.

Try telling that to the cops or Army who hate 9mm. The DOD is working on replacing all of the 9mm Berettas with a higher power pistol due to many complaints. Generally 9mm firearms are selected due to lower cost. Cops need to do a lot of range practice, and 9mm rounds are substantially cheaper than .40 or .45.

The +p rounds have more penetration power, but not stopping power. You need larger grained bullets for that. So a +p could go through someone, but may not stop them. The majority of handgun rounds are ineffective in this regard. That is why officers are trained to fire more than once.

 

[Stoked]

I know America is a police state and the citizens have been taught to accept them and their powers/privileges so what just happens in that video may be seem sensible to Americans but it's just way too much for me. I'm not even going to argue about it and the circumstances of the incident because I know we are on totally different plates here.

I've been reading, watching and listening all the pro-cops arguments about this incident over the internet for the last few hours and no, none of them made my mind even slightly move towards the shooting cops. I hate the thing in that video with my whole mind, hearth and soul. And nothing can change my mind that it's a straight up murder.

Call me biased.

Your opinion is vastly different than mine.

I hate it as well but will not call it murder. That man showed every intention of killing that cop, he forced their hand.

Either way I think we can both agree that there are clear problems that need to be adressed.

 

[Gameface]

Try telling that to the cops or Army who hate 9mm. The DOD is working on replacing all of the 9mm Berettas with a higher power pistol due to many complaints. Generally 9mm firearms are selected due to lower cost. Cops need to do a lot of range practice, and 9mm rounds are substantially cheaper than .40 or .45.

The +p rounds have more penetration power, but not stopping power. You need larger grained bullets for that. So a +p could go through someone, but may not stop them. The majority of handgun rounds are ineffective in this regard. That is why officers are trained to fire more than once.

I've heard all this **** before.

Hit your target...problem solved.

 

[franklin]

Try telling that to the cops or Army who hate 9mm. The DOD is working on replacing all of the 9mm Berettas with a higher power pistol due to many complaints. Generally 9mm firearms are selected due to lower cost. Cops need to do a lot of range practice, and 9mm rounds are substantially cheaper than .40 or .45.

The +p rounds have more penetration power, but not stopping power. You need larger grained bullets for that. So a +p could go through someone, but may not stop them. The majority of handgun rounds are ineffective in this regard. That is why officers are trained to fire more than once.

Troll. negged.

 

[Gameface]

Try telling that to the cops or Army who hate 9mm. The DOD is working on replacing all of the 9mm Berettas with a higher power pistol due to many complaints. Generally 9mm firearms are selected due to lower cost. Cops need to do a lot of range practice, and 9mm rounds are substantially cheaper than .40 or .45.

The +p rounds have more penetration power, but not stopping power. You need larger grained bullets for that. So a +p could go through someone, but may not stop them. The majority of handgun rounds are ineffective in this regard. That is why officers are trained to fire more than once.

Sorry, 9mm is used because it is the official NATO round for hand guns. We all want to be able to share supplies in the even of WWIII and using 9mm ball ammo is part of that.

I've listened to the old salts bemoan the use of the weak *** 9mm and cherish the days when the Navy used 1911's chambered for .45acp. It's a bunch of crap!

It makes ZERO real world difference. ZERO!

Go gather up some stats and get back to me with an apology.

 

[carolinajazz]

Call me biased.

...I've been called that before, too!

 

[Hotdog]

How odd is it that One Brow says the St Louis shooting is justified, but not the Brown shooting?

The Brown shooting ver likely happened in the same manner as the St Louis shooting. Maybe Brown was even more aggressive.

 

[Stoked]

How odd is it that One Brow says the St Louis shooting is justified, but not the Brown shooting?

The Brown shooting ver likely happened in the same manner as the St Louis shooting. Maybe Brown was even more aggressive.

One clearly shows what happened and the other has a very heavy dose of conjecture at this point. I don't agree with One Brows overall take but I can understand it.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

It depends on how you look at it. What about the cost of guns, uniforms, etc. I think a camera should be a necessary component. Many police forces installed cameras in cars or on officers and changed policies that previously required two officers at every incident. That saves a lot of money.

And yes, cops that do stupid **** will get scrutinized, but I'm sorry, that risk comes with the added power and responsibility. A cop that shoots someone gets deference over the common citizen that does the same. Often when they are the only witness. (think Geist in SLC). A body cam would require officers to be prudent and reasonable. And if they aren't, there needs to be consequences.

As far as the cost goes, we weren't in a fiscal crisis nationally years ago when cameras were put into squad cars. We are now, imo, and we can't ignore that.

As far as being scrutinized goes, perhaps I should've said over-scrutinized. A cop curses a lot? Fire him. A cop used the n word once in his car to his partner who's white? Fire him. A cop talks about some chick he was banging last night to his partner? Fire him. The level of absurdity to which those cameras would take things would be off the charts. Every little thing a cop does will be called into question. And just like we are today with this case in St. Louis, we will questions the cop(s) long and hard about their actions, even though in this case, an armed man was coming right at him. I hate pigs. But I have a strong respect for cops who put their life on the line, make tough split-second decisions, and have to live with those decisions for the rest of their life. I'm not saying this STL case is that cut and dry but think about how semi-absurd it is that we're putting these particular cops under a microscope even though the one was being attacked by an armed man who clearly lacks clarity.

Enes, I love you, but I have a big problem with the mindset that this cop was in the wrong and should've simply holstered his weapon and wrestled the guy to the ground. Hyperbole obviously but my point is, what were his options? I concede that the last couple shots are overkill imo but again to play armchair cop in such a crazy situation isn't fair. No training can prepare you for those one or two seconds. None. So I'm going to side on the side of the person trying to diffuse the situation, not the attacker.

 

[LogGrad98]

How odd is it that One Brow says the St Louis shooting is justified, but not the Brown shooting?

The Brown shooting ver likely happened in the same manner as the St Louis shooting. Maybe Brown was even more aggressive.

I may not have it all straight but I thought in the Brown case he wasn't armed, but in the St Louis shooting the perp was obviously carrying a knife.

 

[carolinajazz]

Then they cuff him when he is dead. Wow!

...reminds me of one of those high speed chases on t.v. where a guy on a "crotch rocket" was exiting an interstate at about 90 miles an hour.....hit the side of a bus...bounced about 20 feet in the air, landed on his head and probably broke every bone in his body in the process! When the cops got there, they turned him over on his stomach and cuffed his hands behind his back! I don't think the kid was going anywhere anytime soon, but they cuffed him anyway!!!

 

[Hotdog]

I may not have it all straight but I thought in the Brown case he wasn't armed, but in the St Louis shooting the perp was obviously carrying a knife.

Brown wasn't armed. The St Louis guy just had butter knife I believe. Not sure though.

Brown was 6'4" 290. The St Louis guy was average size. Sure, I'd rather fight a bigger guy with no knife, but it's about the same. Also, if rumors are true, and he already punched him once and put his hand on his gun then he is a huge threat. No one knows If Brown would have taken the cops gun and killed him if he dazed the cop enough.

That's my thing with the Brown shooting. I don't expect cops to take on someone one on one. A cop shouldn't have to do that. If the criminal gets a lucky shot and knocks him out then he could easily take the cops gun and kill the cop.

So being unarmed doesn't mean much to me. You shouldn't be getting aggressive with cops no matter what.

 

[Stoked]

Brown wasn't armed. The St Louis guy just had butter knife I believe. Not sure though.

Brown was 6'4" 290. The St Louis guy was average size. Sure, I'd rather fight a bigger guy with no knife, but it's about the same. Also, if rumors are true, and he already punched him once and put his hand on his gun then he is a huge threat. No one knows If Brown would have taken the cops gun and killed him if he dazed the cop enough.

That's my thing with the Brown shooting. I don't expect cops to take on someone one on one. A cop shouldn't have to do that. If the criminal gets a lucky shot and knocks him out then he could easily take the cops gun and kill the cop.

So being unarmed doesn't mean much to me. You shouldn't be getting aggressive with cops no matter what.

I agree that fighting a cop is just begging for trouble.

But the bolded part is right where those against the cop in the Brown shooting come in. There are rumors going both ways and people are cherry picking which ones to believe.

The proven facts are:

Brown was unarmed
Brown was shot 6 times including the top of the head
Brown had just robbed a store but the officer did not know that at the time.
First shot was fired from in the car

The rest is what might have happened.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Among whom? Bigots, who think that blacks don't belong, will be bigots regardless of affirmative action. Those not bigoted will wait and see how their compatriots perform. The assumptions only gets compounded in the minds of people with axes to grind.

Yes, bigots will always exist. But affirmative action works to amplify the problem. As stated in my example, whether or not racism existed prior to AA, if you put in a program that gives preference to someone based on their race, and they are getting in with much lower scores, it will cause people to have that viewpoint. You yourself assume that Justice Thomas would not be where he was but for AA. If you do not see how offensive that is to a very intelligent hard working person like Justice Thomas, I don't know what else to say. Affirmative Action has made a lot of good changes, but tweaking the program to not be about race but about giving a benefit to those who have had less of an opportunity to succeed makes sense.

Complete, utter codswallop. If your hypothesis were correct, and this supposed stigma attached due to affirmative action, than any poor person would be subject to this stigma, as opposed to black people only. Do you believe in your position or not?

First, the poor are ALREADY discriminated against. The majority of the issues in this regard are due to class. It is class warfare, and everyone in poverty is a victim. I agree with many of the general points of the Time article I posted yesterday. Secondly, if you have a program that lets in more disadvantaged/poor, it will be much harder to have a bias as it may be harder to differentiate. For example, if AA was based on class, you would not likely argue someone is a Sup. Ct. justice because AA helped them.

You think giving 20 points, when 100 is needed, made admission automatic? Seriously, what world

I don't think that. The Supreme Court thinks that. And that is why it was overturned. Essentially, almost anyone get get 80 points without race. The last 20 were the difference makers. So race did make the difference.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts you don't have a scrap of data to back up your claim of "very low", particularly in light of Gratz vs. Bollinger.

https://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/the-baylor-law-data-dump-now-with-race-and-scholarships/2/

This is just one example with a clear breakdown. If you understand the way the LSAT is scored (one answer is not one point) you see a huge preference. Having applied to many of these programs with an LSAT over 160, I can tell you it is tough to get in. From a quick glance, it looks like one white student was admitted with an LSAT under 160 (list did not identify male/female). And they are giving larger scholarships as well (which again, would make more sense to base this on class. Give poor students more of a financial benefit). At the internal list I saw, a good friend, who happens to be black got in with under 150 at a school with similar LSAT scores as Baylor.

No, this is the same old racism, finding a new excuse. People don't act in a racist fashion based on careful, rational considerations like the existence of an affirmative action program. People act in a racist fashion based on emotions and habit, and then later find rationalizations for their racism, picking at anything they can grab at.

You did. You stated affirmative action helped Justice Thomas. You just assumed and stereotyped, then tried to defend it when you have no idea what his LSAT score was.

I don't think it should be based on class or race, ideally. That's an interesting tidbit.

This country has a history of oppression. The difference is is "OK" to oppress the poor under the constitution. It is easy to say blacks are oppressed based on our country's history, but reparations, which have been both good and bad have been attempted. For those in poverty, it is the status quo.

First, you still haven't mentioned the year. Pre-Gratz (2003), I would not be surprised this was common. Second, can you point to any of these documents, or am I supposed to take your word for it?

Yes, I have copies of internal copies of school documents. The Baylor document gives a reasonable view. And it was post-Gratz.

Again, you are treating racism as the result of a decision-making process. You don't fix a broken leg by putting a splint on your arm.

Racism already exists. When you put a program in place that lets in lesser qualified individuals, it can create a stigma against that person or persons. It is a targeted stigma based on clear data. I understand the reasons for AA, and I'm not saying get rid of it, just tweak it so it actually represents all the less fortunate. Tweaking AA won't get rid of racism, that is a different issue. It will get rid of a created bias as argued by Justice Thomas. That is why he is against it. So don't take it from me, take it from a genius black jurist who has felt the bias AA creates:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html

The funny thing is, you pointed out how he stated his diploma was worth $0.15, but he believes AA caused it. You should read the full opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf

Thomas graduated *** laude, but not magna *** laude nor summa *** laude, from Holy Cross, a good school, but not an Ivy League school. He had not achieved to a typical Yale Law school level, but was admitted nonetheless. Once there, he was able to prove he belonged. His background and treatment had disadvantaged him, but once that was accounted for, he proved he belonged. That's an affirmative action success story, the type you think should be ended.

All you are doing is justifying your bias caused by AA. First, you have no idea what Thomas' LSAT score was, which for Yale, is the biggest factor (Median score of 173). You are just making a biased assumption. Your comments are a clear example of the type of racism that is created by AA.

It's an argument I've heard many times. It's always been dreck, and continues to be dreck, because it is contrary to our understanding of human behavior.

Ever taken a sociology course? Of course we differentiate. We even mate with people similar to us (not just race). And it is also human nature to have an ego and make you think you are better than you probably are. A survival characteristic. And when you have a mechanism that does differentiate, how can it not cause bias?

If red heads had been discriminated against, not instituting affirmative action would not alter it, and instituting it does not make the bias worse.

That is a ridiculous statement. The reason I use the red head example, is to show that the program creates a bias that was not there before, that can be identified by a trait. Racism will exist no matter what. But AA is a mechanism that creates a bias, even for those who are not racist.

I will agree that your position is based on a poor understanding of human nature.

Social inequalities are harmful to everyone, it is important to to question the status quo and to determine whether our kind has the behavioral plasticity to learn how to reduce inequality. If you look at human nature historically, discrimination in some form has always been part of the status quo. Differentiating is part of the human condition, but I believe we can be better. Continue to believe your fantasies.

 

[JAZZGASM]

As far as the cost goes, we weren't in a fiscal crisis nationally years ago when cameras were put into squad cars. We are now, imo, and we can't ignore that.

As far as being scrutinized goes, perhaps I should've said over-scrutinized. A cop curses a lot? Fire him. A cop used the n word once in his car to his partner who's white? Fire him. A cop talks about some chick he was banging last night to his partner? Fire him. The level of absurdity to which those cameras would take things would be off the charts. Every little thing a cop does will be called into question. And just like we are today with this case in St. Louis, we will questions the cop(s) long and hard about their actions, even though in this case, an armed man was coming right at him. I hate pigs. But I have a strong respect for cops who put their life on the line, make tough split-second decisions, and have to live with those decisions for the rest of their life. I'm not saying this STL case is that cut and dry but think about how semi-absurd it is that we're putting these particular cops under a microscope even though the one was being attacked by an armed man who clearly lacks clarity.

Enes, I love you, but I have a big problem with the mindset that this cop was in the wrong and should've simply holstered his weapon and wrestled the guy to the ground. Hyperbole obviously but my point is, what were his options? I concede that the last couple shots are overkill imo but again to play armchair cop in such a crazy situation isn't fair. No training can prepare you for those one or two seconds. None. So I'm going to side on the side of the person trying to diffuse the situation, not the attacker.

I think you overestimate how the cameras will be used. Many cops in Utah wear them, including during the recent shooting. They are only examined for evidence. They aren't going to release everything. Doesn't work that way. And again, with power comes responsibility. The benefits>cost.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

I think you overestimate how the cameras will be used. Many cops in Utah wear them, including during the recent shooting. They are only examined for evidence. They aren't going to release everything. Doesn't work that way. And again, with power comes responsibility. The benefits>cost.

It doesn't work that way but it would imo. All it takes is for one person to have reviewed those tapes and been offended and you can bet they'd be leaked.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Troll. negged.

I gave you some positive rep. You continue to neg me since your clearly erroneous response regarding food stamp qualifications that you tried to argue multiple times. LOL. I understand your negativity due to your stupidity, but it is not my fault you are an idiot. So I have given you a positive rep to reduce some of your negativity in life. It may increase your rep power/points, but unfortunately, it will not increase your intelligence.