Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Aca · **#141** by **Aca** » Aug 18, 2014 7:35 am

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... ng-in-head

Ferguson teenager Michael Brown felled by bullet to head, autopsy suggests

Sunday’s revelation of an autopsy report of the 9 August killing, which has polarised opinion across the US, threatened to inflame tensions further. Brown, 18, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, according to a preliminary private autopsy performed on behalf of his family on Sunday, the New York Times reported.

One of the bullets entered the top of the skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck and caused a fatal injury, according to Michael Baden, a former chief medical examiner for the City of New York.

Baden said it was probably the last bullet to hit the teenager. Brown was also shot four times in the right arm. All bullets were fired into his front, the examiner concluded.

The absence of gunpowder on the body suggested the bullets were not fired from close range. That determination could change if there was gunshot residue on Brown’s clothing, to which Baden did not have access, he told the New York Times

Sciwoman · **#142** by **Sciwoman** » Aug 18, 2014 7:56 am

... was shot at least six times, including twice in the head...

What in the goddamn fucking hell requires that kind of response outside of imminent threat to someone's life?

Sciwoman · **#143** by **Sciwoman** » Aug 18, 2014 8:10 am

The news just keeps getting better.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/0 ... -ferguson/

Tonight, as tens of thousands of people around the world watched, Hussein was threatened by an officer wielding a weapon. “Get the fuck out of here! You get that light off or you’re getting shot with this!,” the man shouts.

Peter Brown · **#144** by **Peter Brown** » Aug 18, 2014 8:16 am

Sciwoman wrote:
... was shot at least six times, including twice in the head...

What in the goddamn fucking hell requires that kind of response outside of imminent threat to someone's life?

You can't count the number of bullets used as a contributing factor as from every report I've watched regarding US police gun use I simply doesn't matter how many officers to how many suspects there are. Each officer, even if there had been twenty of them, will fire the whole clip and reload. :crazy:

Sciwoman · **#145** by **Sciwoman** » Aug 18, 2014 8:25 am

Peter Brown wrote:
Sciwoman wrote:
... was shot at least six times, including twice in the head...

What in the goddamn fucking hell requires that kind of response outside of imminent threat to someone's life?

You can't count the number of bullets used as a contributing factor as from every report I've watched regarding US police gun use I simply doesn't matter how many officers to how many suspects there are. Each officer, even if there had been twenty of them, will fire the whole clip and reload.

How silly of me to think that using the minimum amount of force necessary to get the situation under control would be the sensible thing to do.

Oldskeptic · **#146** by **Oldskeptic** » Aug 18, 2014 9:14 am

I want to know, and so should you, is how a cop in a police car got his left arm around the neck of a 6'4" Big Mike while the cop was still in his seat? I'll tell you how. Big Mike stuck his head through the window going for the cop. The lying sack of shit and his script writers were too fucking stupid to figure out that you can't just reach out the window of a car and grab a man that tall around the neck.

The cop pushed his door open and it bounced off Big Mike and his pal. More like the cop tried to get out of the car and Big Mike slammed the door on the cop and then went after him through the window.

Then according to the lying sack of shit Big Mike was running away and the cop shot Big Mike in the back. Good story, but according to Baden's autopsy Big Mike wasn't shot in the back.

http://gawker.com/autopsy-report-michae ... 1623117894

So meek and mild unarmed 6'4" 300 lb Big Mike. The guy in this video:

Seen ten minutes earlier pushing around and threatening a shop clerk and walking out of a store without paying for the cigars he was stealing was just minding his own business when a cop decided to shoot him for no other reason than that he was black. Give me a fucking break.

Here's a scenario for you. Big Mike and his pal are walking down the middle of the road blocking traffic. The cop pulls up and tells them to get out of the road. They tell the cop to fuck off. The cop opens the door of the police car. Big Mike slams it on the cop and goes for the cop through the window. The cop gets his arm around Big Mike's neck, pulls his gun, and shoots Big Mike in the arm. Big Mike backs off out of the car. The cop gets out of the car and 6'4" 300 lb Big Mike is still belligerent, not backing off, so the cop empties his revolver into poor innocent unarmed 6'4" 300 lb Big Mike.

Cry me a fucking river. The only photo of Big Mike that is being shown is one provided by his mother when he was a chubby cheeked 12 year old at a video arcade. That's not the same person that is seen in the video from the store straight arming a clerk and then turning back to physically threaten the clerk.

Are police over reacting? You tell me what you'd want your police to do if protests were turning into looting riots and arson in your town? Yeah! Your town, your street, your business. What the fuck do you want them to do?

Tear gas and rubber bullets don't make a fucking war zone.

Oldskeptic · **#147** by **Oldskeptic** » Aug 18, 2014 9:24 am

Sciwoman wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:
Sciwoman wrote:
... was shot at least six times, including twice in the head...

What in the goddamn fucking hell requires that kind of response outside of imminent threat to someone's life?

You can't count the number of bullets used as a contributing factor as from every report I've watched regarding US police gun use I simply doesn't matter how many officers to how many suspects there are. Each officer, even if there had been twenty of them, will fire the whole clip and reload.

How silly of me to think that using the minimum amount of force necessary to get the situation under control would be the sensible thing to do.

So tell me, if you have a 6'4" three hundred pound man coming at you in close quarters how long do you wait in between shots to determine that the last one was sufficient to get the situation under control?

DarthHelmet86 · **#148** by **DarthHelmet86** » Aug 18, 2014 9:35 am

Sciwoman wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:
Sciwoman wrote:
... was shot at least six times, including twice in the head...

What in the goddamn fucking hell requires that kind of response outside of imminent threat to someone's life?

You can't count the number of bullets used as a contributing factor as from every report I've watched regarding US police gun use I simply doesn't matter how many officers to how many suspects there are. Each officer, even if there had been twenty of them, will fire the whole clip and reload.

How silly of me to think that using the minimum amount of force necessary to get the situation under control would be the sensible thing to do.

A gun is lethal force, at that point the situation is going to be under control only when the target has been killed or is incapacitated. That is why they have other options of force, because the last one is a killer. Now we can argue about the cop having the need to use lethal force, but there is no minimum amount of lethal once you start using it.

Should be noted this is no defense of the cop or an argument for why the cop should have used lethal force. Merely an attempt to point out that lethal force is an all or nothing option.

Sciwoman · **#149** by **Sciwoman** » Aug 18, 2014 10:16 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
Sciwoman wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:
Sciwoman wrote:

What in the goddamn fucking hell requires that kind of response outside of imminent threat to someone's life?

You can't count the number of bullets used as a contributing factor as from every report I've watched regarding US police gun use I simply doesn't matter how many officers to how many suspects there are. Each officer, even if there had been twenty of them, will fire the whole clip and reload.

How silly of me to think that using the minimum amount of force necessary to get the situation under control would be the sensible thing to do.

So tell me, if you have a 6'4" three hundred pound man coming at you in close quarters how long do you wait in between shots to determine that the last one was sufficient to get the situation under control?

Every thing I have read so far (notice the qualifier), suggests that he was not running towards the officer, but was standing some 30 to 35 feet away. I do understand that once an officer starts shooting, he or she is going to keep shooting until the suspect goes down, but right now, I do not understand why the officer started shooting to begin with.

Acetone · **#150** by **Acetone** » Aug 18, 2014 11:52 am

So no shots to the back? That kills the story of him running away. Most of the shots went into his arm? That kills the story of him having his hands up and surrendering (cops aim for centre of mass, so unless the guy had absolutely horrible aim... also, there are shots which entered and re-enter from arm to body it appears).

He was pulled over for J-Walking, lol... (I don't even know where this one came from, it was clearly stated that he was suspected for a robbery didn't it???) Regardless of what he was pulled over for it appears that he did have a struggle with the officer. So far everything is adding up with what the police officer said and nothing supports what the friend says.

I think it's likely that the shot into the top of the head happened when the perp fell from his shots. This is a common wound... Also, the autopsy cannot conclude that he was not shot at close range due to lack of gun powder on his body because they were not allowed to examine his clothing. All they can conclude is there is no gun powder on his body.

Fucking THUG got into a scruffle with a police officer and got shot. Sucks to be him. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Which brings me back to my point: What should be discussed is the police force used to break up the protest. I still say over the top but police force of some kind was necessary to break it up. What would people prefer the officers not get involved at all and just let the rioters destroy the city over a dead thug??? Yeah, bet that'd be so much more preferable.

Acetone · **#151** by **Acetone** » Aug 18, 2014 12:12 pm

Sciwoman wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
Sciwoman wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:

You can't count the number of bullets used as a contributing factor as from every report I've watched regarding US police gun use I simply doesn't matter how many officers to how many suspects there are. Each officer, even if there had been twenty of them, will fire the whole clip and reload.

How silly of me to think that using the minimum amount of force necessary to get the situation under control would be the sensible thing to do.

So tell me, if you have a 6'4" three hundred pound man coming at you in close quarters how long do you wait in between shots to determine that the last one was sufficient to get the situation under control?

Every thing I have read so far (notice the qualifier), suggests that he was not running towards the officer, but was standing some 30 to 35 feet away. I do understand that once an officer starts shooting, he or she is going to keep shooting until the suspect goes down, but right now, I do not understand why the officer started shooting to begin with.

The kid was fighting with the cop inside his own fucking vehicle.

You know, here if a cop pulls you over and you approach his vehicle without him asking you to he is liable to pull his gun out. You fucking touch a cop without his permission while he's trying to pull you over, you're liable to get your ass beaten and his knee in the back of your head. You fucking fight with a cop inside his own vehicle for his fucking weapon you're liable to get shot, and cops shoot till you're on the ground.

Both stories thus far confirm that the kid fought with the cop inside the vehicle. Now how in the world could the officer have fucking reached through his window and grabbed the 6'4" kid by the neck and dragged him into the vehicle? Please, tell me. I'm actually 6'4" and I can tell you, no one is reaching up from a seated position to grab me around the neck and pull me anywhere. If my head is near a car window it's because I put it there.

Scarlett · **#152** by **Scarlett** » Aug 18, 2014 1:08 pm

I don't know what to believe in this mess. I do think that since Michael Brown's body was lying some way from the police vehicle the exchange (however that may have transpired) took place, it does somewhat back up the statements saying he was trying to get away. Since he was already injured by a bullet to the arm I wonder why it was seen as preferable to fire several more bullets into him rather than call for back up and apprehend him alive at a later time?

I'm not saying he wasn't a thug, the footage of him in the convenience store certainly indicate he was. This wouldn't automatically make the shooting an acceptable action.

DarthHelmet86 · **#153** by **DarthHelmet86** » Aug 18, 2014 1:35 pm

Scarlett wrote:I don't know what to believe in this mess. I do think that since Michael Brown's body was lying some way from the police vehicle the exchange (however that may have transpired) took place, it does somewhat back up the statements saying he was trying to get away. Since he was already injured by a bullet to the arm I wonder why it was seen as preferable to fire several more bullets into him rather than call for back up and apprehend him alive at a later time?

I'm not saying he wasn't a thug, the footage of him in the convenience store certainly indicate he was. This wouldn't automatically make the shooting an acceptable action.

I think that is a good reason why we should sit and wait before we make up our minds. At the moment the evidence is hear say and heavily biased. A few days ago many were sure Brown was shot in the back while running away, now it is possible that was not the case at all. You ask why after he attempted to back off the cop didn't stop shooting, it is possible that there just wasn't enough time for that to happen. Or it is possible the cop angered and having already fired just continued, or that he is a racist douche canoe looking to kill someone. At the moment it is the waiting game for people like you and me.

However for the people in the town there is no waiting, clearly there is a strong feeling of racial oppression amongst the community there. This is the boils head and it has burst, the polices actions have done nothing to help that. Instead they have inflamed the situation and in doing so have kinda shown that they were oppressing the community. There clearly is a culture in that police force of us and them and the them is a pile of scum that needs to be harassed for the communities good.

Nicko · **#154** by **Nicko** » Aug 18, 2014 2:59 pm

Acetone wrote:So no shots to the back? That kills the story of him running away.

It only means he was not shot while running away. Which, incidentally, rules out one of the possibilities that might have exonerated the officer.

Acetone wrote:He was pulled over for J-Walking, lol... (I don't even know where this one came from, it was clearly stated that he was suspected for a robbery didn't it???)

It might have come from the chief of Ferguson PD explicitly stating that Brown was stopped for jaywalking. The police story is that, after stopping the pair for jaywalking, the officer noticed that Brown was holding a box of cigars and matched the description.

Acetone wrote:Regardless of what he was pulled over for it appears that he did have a struggle with the officer. So far everything is adding up with what the police officer said and nothing supports what the friend says.

Well, the friend says there was a struggle with the officer too. There seems to be general agreement that there was some kind of struggle.

Acetone wrote:Fucking THUG got into a scruffle with a police officer and got shot. Sucks to be him. I won't lose any sleep over it.

So this is the way you think a society should be run? Cops should just be allowed to shoot "thugs"?

How, pray tell, will this sorting of citizens into "thug" and "not thug" be done, I wonder?

I'm certain that skin colour will play no part whatsoever in this process.

Acetone wrote:Which brings me back to my point: What should be discussed is the police force used to break up the protest. I still say over the top but police force of some kind was necessary to break it up. What would people prefer the officers not get involved at all and just let the rioters destroy the city over a dead thug??? Yeah, bet that'd be so much more preferable.

Ever hear of an analogy involving straws and camel vertebrae?

Ever wonder how this story would run if it happened in a country that was not the US?

Peter Brown · **#155** by **Peter Brown** » Aug 18, 2014 3:12 pm

So after a week what do the police do? Start a curfew and the next day call in the National Guard.

The locals are angry, the running of the investigation badly managed to the point of incompetence.

These cops think they are the Borg, our brains are not functioning, resistance is futile, you will be repressed.

Ever wonder how this story would run if it happened in a country that was not the US?

It did, it was in the UK, London. Criminal elements organised riots on mobile phones etc, the police stood back, those who looted were caught on CCTV and later arrested. In other parts of the UK looters tried the same start a riot trick. Police and shop owners were better prepared.

Boris two years later bought a 2nd hand water cannon from Germany, the daft twat.

Cthulhu's Trilby · **#156** by **Cthulhu's Trilby** » Aug 18, 2014 3:39 pm

Peter Brown wrote:Boris two years later bought a 2nd hand water cannon from Germany, the daft twat.

I spoke to a senior police officer shortly after the riots and he said that the Met isn't set up to deal with one-off, large-scale disturbances like that. If you think about it, it doesn't make economical sense to maintain police numbers to deal with once-in-a-blue-moon occurences. I'm broadly against the use of water cannons because of the possibility of their use on peaceful protests, but they do make a very handy force multiplier if you've got small numbers of police spread across large areas.

Acetone · **#157** by **Acetone** » Aug 18, 2014 4:08 pm

So this is the way you think a society should be run? Cops should just be allowed to shoot "thugs"?

How, pray tell, will this sorting of citizens into "thug" and "not thug" be done, I wonder?

I'm certain that skin colour will play no part whatsoever in this process.

Yes, that's exactly what I said, cops should just be allowed to shoot thugs. Is English your first language?

Also, I'm going to assume you're not insinuating I'm being racist for pointing out this kid was a thug. I've grown up in a rough neighbourhood my entire life, if you don't know what a thug is and how to distinguish them from non-thugs then that's your fucking problem. In fact, I think, that because you think it must have something to do with race is on you not me.

orpheus · **#158** by **orpheus** » Aug 18, 2014 4:34 pm

Acetone wrote:So no shots to the back? That kills the story of him running away. Most of the shots went into his arm? That kills the story of him having his hands up and surrendering (cops aim for centre of mass, so unless the guy had absolutely horrible aim...

Well, he might very well have had horrible aim. He was aiming for center of mass, but two out of six shots hit his head. :think:

also, there are shots which entered and re-enter from arm to body it appears).

Citation? I don't see that anywhere in the article.

I think it's likely that the shot into the top of the head happened when the perp fell from his shots. This is a common wound...

And the other head shot? (See above.)

Also, the autopsy cannot conclude that he was not shot at close range due to lack of gun powder on his body because they were not allowed to examine his clothing. All they can conclude is there is no gun powder on his body.

And why was the medical examiner not allowed to examine his clothing?

orpheus · **#159** by **orpheus** » Aug 18, 2014 4:36 pm

Acetone wrote:
So this is the way you think a society should be run? Cops should just be allowed to shoot "thugs"?

How, pray tell, will this sorting of citizens into "thug" and "not thug" be done, I wonder?

I'm certain that skin colour will play no part whatsoever in this process.

Yes, that's exactly what I said, cops should just be allowed to shoot thugs.

Macdoc · **#160** by **Macdoc** » Aug 18, 2014 5:10 pm

You mean like this...?? :nono:

What I Did After Police Killed My Son
Ten years later, we in Wisconsin passed the nation’s first law calling for outside reviews.
By MICHAEL BELL August 15, 2014

After police in Kenosha, Wis., shot my 21-year-old son to death outside his house ten years ago — and then immediately cleared themselves of all wrongdoing — an African-American man approached me and said: “If they can shoot a white boy like a dog, imagine what we’ve been going through.”

I could imagine it all too easily, just as the rest of the country has been seeing it all too clearly in the terrible images coming from Ferguson, Mo., in the aftermath of the killing of Michael Brown. On Friday, after a week of angry protests, the police in Ferguson finally identified the officer implicated in Brown's shooting, although the circumstances still remain unclear.

I have known the name of the policeman who killed my son, Michael, for ten years. And he is still working on the force in Kenosha.

Yes, there is good reason to think that many of these unjustifiable homicides by police across the country are racially motivated. But there is a lot more than that going on here. Our country is simply not paying enough attention to the terrible lack of accountability of police departments and the way it affects all of us—regardless of race or ethnicity. Because if a blond-haired, blue-eyed boy — that was my son, Michael — can be shot in the head under a street light with his hands cuffed behind his back, in front of five eyewitnesses (including his mother and sister), and his father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who flew in three wars for his country — that’s me — and I still couldn’t get anything done about it, then Joe the plumber and Javier the roofer aren’t going to be able to do anything about it either.

read on

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3AlMgUxLe

Police are employees of the state, subject to the same laws as everyone else with a higher duty of care because they are armed.

Acetone your position is odious in the extreme.

In Ontario at lease all situations of harm to a citizen are handled by an independent review body and often by a another police force entirely.

And we STILL get abuses.....too many cops are part of a very sick culture.

Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Re: Missouri has officially turned into a warzone

Who is online