Ferguson: Your Thoughts.

[LambdaDelta]

Though honestly, even ignoring the case of Wilson being justified in his actions or not...

Shouldn't he still be charged with intentionally altering a crime scene and/or sabotaging evidence?

 

[oath2order]

Aren't chokeholds illegal for officers to use, or am I misremembering?

Or is it a state-by-state law and New York is exempt?

I know its illegal for NYPD. They updated the article

 

[WonderK]

Though honestly, even ignoring the case of Wilson being justified in his actions or not...

Shouldn't he still be charged with intentionally altering a crime scene and/or sabotaging evidence?

Most definitely.

 

[KarlaKGB]

Police officers are trained for these situations. Shooting Brown several times is excessive against an unarmed person. If you have to shoot someone, you usually shoot to disable, not to kill. He overreacted and that ended Brown's life. Officers have a plethora of options available to them. Why immediately go for the option of emptying your entire clip into someone? Even if Brown did charge Wilson, isn't one shot enough?

WRONG

anyone who has spent some time in self defence/firearms circles knows that 'shoot to disable' is a hollywood myth and that the reality is that if ur in a situation where u need to shoot, ur not in a position to place shots in "disabling" spots. as one firearms instructor says:

1) Shooting to wound is “intentional maiming”. Intentional Maiming has been a tort and a crime since the Laws of King Stephen, circa 1150 AD. It is lawful under many circumstance to cause the death of someone while defending yourself, it is NEVER lawful to “intentionally merely wound”. That’s maiming. Even if the Grand Jury no-bills you and they probably would in most jurisdictions, the civil case would ruin you.

An actor can (in most places- certainly in Texas) shoot a burglar to defend your home, if Mr. Burglar dies its tough luck on him. If he’s crippled, it’s tough luck on him too. On the other hand, the actor cannot PURPOSELY merely injure his assailant and cause an amputation or a life in a wheelchair. If you do, you will be paying him forever.

2) Shooting to wound is extremely difficult – the Lone Ranger was able to do it, but could most real people? Even for an excellent shot who practices a LOT, hitting a knee or a gun-holding hand, in the dark, during a gun fight with the adrenaline pumping while ducking incoming bullets is probably an impossible task. Even wounded bad guys may choose to fight on and perhaps wind up killing you anyway.

3) Shooting to wound expends precious ammo and critical seconds trying to non-lethally solve a deadly force problem. During this silly exercise you might get shot, so the maneuver puts YOU and YOURS in additional deadly danger. If Mr. Bad Guy center punches you while you are trying to shoot the gun from his hand, will he be merciful and kind to your survivors? In other words, “shoot to wound” puts you at more risk, and garners no value to you if you fail.

4) Shooting to wound suggests that the actor (the Good Guy) was NOT in “fear for his life”. If the actor truly feared for his life, he wouldn’t have hesitated to try to kill the assailant. In many jurisdictions, you MUST be in fear for your life before using deadly force; admitting to attempting to “merely wound” undercuts the assertion that the good guys life was in jeopardy.

5) It is bad tactics. As noted in 3) above, it may get YOU killed.

As for “Shoot to Kill”- this is a meaningless term.

We don’t shoot to kill, we SHOOT TO STOP an unlawful deadly attack or armed felonious action. Many times this will result in the death of the attacker, but that is truly not a required outcome. If the Bad Guy throws up his hands and surrenders, that’s just as good result- he stopped attacking me, he abandoned his armed felonious action. If he leaves the scene in handcuffs in a deputy’s car rather than in the Medical Examiner’s van, it is all the same to me.

educate urself. go to a range and shoot a handgun, and u might realise its not as easy as it looks in hollywood. then do it under time pressure and see how u fair. and then imagine doing it when u have real bad guys who want to do u harm. the fact that u use the word 'clip' shows how hopelessly clueless u r about firearms

 

[WonderK]

WRONG

anyone who has spent some time in self defence/firearms circles knows that 'shoot to disable' is a hollywood myth and that the reality is that if ur in a situation where u need to shoot, ur not in a position to place shots in "disabling" spots. as one firearms instructor says:

educate urself. go to a range and shoot a handgun, and u might realise its not as easy as it looks in hollywood. then do it under time pressure and see how u fair. and then imagine doing it when u have real bad guys who want to do u harm. the fact that u use the word 'clip' shows how hopelessly clueless u r about firearms

He still had other options to disable Brown. He didn't have to resort to his firearm.

 

[LambdaDelta]

WRONG

anyone who has spent some time in self defence/firearms circles knows that 'shoot to disable' is a hollywood myth and that the reality is that if ur in a situation where u need to shoot, ur not in a position to place shots in "disabling" spots. as one firearms instructor says:

educate urself. go to a range and shoot a handgun, and u might realise its not as easy as it looks in hollywood. then do it under time pressure and see how u fair. and then imagine doing it when u have real bad guys who want to do u harm. the fact that u use the word 'clip' shows how hopelessly clueless u r about firearms

In which case a firearm should be used as a back-against-the-wall last resort, not the first option presented.

 

[KarlaKGB]

He still had other options to disable Brown. He didn't have to resort to his firearm.

1. now ur changing the topic, i hope u at least accept that there is no arbitrary 'limit' to the number of shots u can fire at someone, and that shooting to wound/disable is a fallacy

2. maybe he did, maybe he didnt. its known that he did not carry taser. perhaps he had a baton, i dont know. none of us know exactly wat the situation was on that street. why shud he risk losing in a hand to hand fight with a big guy like brown? he needs to consider wat brown might do if he takes control of his gun? why did brown have to charge at him despite warnings? we dont even know what really happened and as such we are in no position to judge whether or not using his firearm was an appropriate use of force. stop making blanket statements from ur armchair behind ur computer

 

[LambdaDelta]

Also, if Brown really was close enough to have attempted to grab the gun, I see no reason why he couldn't of shot to disable.

Plus as was mentioned before, if Brown was running away, then Wilson should of called for backup. Not decide to deal with the situation using force on his own.

 

[KarlaKGB]

In which case a firearm should be used as a back-against-the-wall last resort, not the first option presented.

so tell me how u know that it wasnt used as a last resort, and cite the (conclusively proven) narrative of events in which that applies. oh wait, there is no narrative of events that can be conclusively proven. and as such, ur in no position to say if he had or didnt have his back against the wall.

 

[LambdaDelta]

its known that he did not carry taser.

honestly his whole department should be charged for this imo

since iirc wasn't there only one in the entire department?

 

[KarlaKGB]

Also, if Brown really was close enough to have attempted to grab the gun, I see no reason why he couldn't of shot to disable.

Plus as was mentioned before, if Brown was running away, then Wilson should of called for backup. Not decide to deal with the situation using force on his own.

if the bad guy is close enough to attempt to grab the gun, u dont have time to place a carefully aimed shot to disable. im amazed that we have so many gunfighting experts here on tbt, i need to check im not on the high road.org or something

 

[LambdaDelta]

so tell me how u know that it wasnt used as a last resort, and cite the (conclusively proven) narrative of events in which that applies. oh wait, there is no narrative of events that can be conclusively proven. and as such, ur in no position to say if he had or didnt have his back against the wall.

I don't have any, just like you.

ergo, I can condemn his choice of action just as much as you condone it. it's equal ground, just with different sides

 

[WonderK]

1. now ur changing the topic, i hope u at least accept that there is no arbitrary 'limit' to the number of shots u can fire at someone, and that shooting to wound/disable is a fallacy

Wilson didn't have to shoot him multiple times.

2. maybe he did, maybe he didnt. its known that he did not carry taser. perhaps he had a baton, i dont know. none of us know exactly wat the situation was on that street. why shud he risk losing in a hand to hand fight with a big guy like brown? he needs to consider wat brown might do if he takes control of his gun? why did brown have to charge at him despite warnings? we dont even know what really happened and as such we are in no position to judge whether or not using his firearm was an appropriate use of force. stop making blanket statements from ur armchair behind ur computer

No one knows what really happened that day. All I can say is: He didn't have to kill him. Killing someone is a last resort. Not the first option.

 

[KarlaKGB]

I don't have any, just like you.

ergo, I can condemn his choice of action just as much as you condone it. it's equal ground, just with different sides

no theres a big difference between wat ur doing and wat im doing. wat ur saying is that his actions were wrong and unjustified, even tho u have no knowledge of the situation.

i was in no way condoning his actions, i was merely explaining how it could have been justified. im not the one passing judgement on his actions.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Wilson didn't have to shoot him multiple times.

so how many times is acceptable then?

and if u say that he didnt have to shoot him at all, then thats a whole different debate that we're in no position to argue because WE DONT KNOW THE FACTS

No one knows what really happened that day. All I can say is: He didn't have to kill him. Killing someone is a last resort. Not the first option.

way to contradict urself. if u don't know wat happened, then how can u so resolutely say that he didnt have to kill him?

 

[LambdaDelta]

In which case, I'd like to bring up all the evidence that would of proven there being a struggle, and as such justifying Wilson in his actions, being effectively erased.

Yes, I know this is circumstantial evidence and doesn't prove anything. But you can't deny it being suspicious how Wilson had tampered with the scene that could of been used to prove he had just cause in his actions, no? Especially as an officer, surely he'd of known his gun and the scene events took place would be vital to the case.

 

[WonderK]

so how many times is acceptable then?

and if u say that he didnt have to shoot him at all, then thats a whole different debate that we're in no position to argue because WE DONT KNOW THE FACTS

Not emptying your clip into someone.

way to contradict urself. if u don't know wat happened, then how can u so resolutely say that he didnt have to kill him?

He was unarmed. It was excessive force. I already said that.

 

[lazuli]

[looks at poll] welp thats 27 people im going to have to ignore forever

 

[KarlaKGB]

In which case, I'd like to bring up all the evidence that would of proven there being a struggle, and as such justifying Wilson in his actions, being effectively erased.

Yes, I know this is circumstantial evidence and doesn't prove anything. But you can't deny it being suspicious how Wilson had tampered with the scene that could of been used to prove he had just cause in his actions, no? Especially as an officer, surely he'd of known his gun and the scene events took place would be vital to the case.

so basically ur changing the topic now.

Not emptying your clip into someone.
He was unarmed. It was excessive force. I already said that.

1. wtf is a clip?
2. again ur making blanket statements that have no founding in the real world. ppl kill each other with their fists all the time. u cant unequivocally say that shooting an unarmed person is excessive force. there are so many factors that u ignore that would justify such a response.

 

[LambdaDelta]

so basically ur changing the topic now.

The topic is the Ferguson case, so no. Not really.

- - - Post Merge - - -

1. wtf is a clip?

Tthe part of the gun that holds the ammo.

For someone that's spouting off gun knowledge like you know better than everyone else, I'm legit surprised you don't know this.

 

[-Apples-]

Although I'm not changing my opinion on this situation, I have to agree with the tags on this thread. There are some controversies in politics that people are further apart from each other (where they can't get along with opposing views), but this one is the worst of the controversies I just mentioned. Some think Michael Brown was just doing something little while others believe he is truly a punk. But since nobody can agree with each other and if it becomes a fight, we should be done with this thread. In fact, I think the Ferguson thing must be dropped everywhere, even to those who haven't even heard of TBT or Animal Crossing. Stuff like 9/11 and the Civil War are okay to grudge against because those were serious issues that are bad enough to be recorded in history. However, stuff like Paula Deen's dismissal and the Ferguson thing hasn't even reached the bar of how bad something is where it should remain in history. I don't think the subject should be continued on for another four months while we can still grudge against the American Civil War for another 500 years. We just have to let things go.