FERGUSON

Vista123 said:
sorry yes i meant the opposite.


Chicago: In Chicago the police department is 50 percent white. The city itself has an equal number of Hispanic, black and white residents. 88% of the Chicago police force lives in the city.

Ferguson: There are three black officers and 50 white officers with a town that is 70% percent African-American. The police force of Ferguson does not live in their city.
Click to expand...


Im not citing this as THE reason, just one more detail to the complexity.

My theory is that this was a perfect storm. Media + racism +poverty + push back from trayvon martin +headline hunting + Race baiting+ fear mongering + POLITICS at its basest level
 
The uniform issue is spilling over into Europe as well. DD is AD AF in England. They are not allowed to be off base in uniform unless they are in their POV going to and from base, no stops. DD also told to not tell anyone she is in the US military for fear of assualt or kidnapping. :thumbdown:
 
I don't know if regs have changed or maybe it was an AF thing back 20 years ago but upon arriving in Oct 89, they stripped the DOD decal and every service member at our base in the UK was told you DO NOT shop on the economy in uniform.
~ PCSing they wore civvies and their passport looked no different than any civilian.
~~ Only red flag was many of us had dogs in crates at check in or showed orders for baggage allowance Same as today.
~~~ We would laugh because let's see...our car is a left hand drive and the Brits have a right hand drive. How many Ford Mustangs, Chevy Camaros, or Dodge Ram trucks are in Europe, let alone the UK? Basically, the cars they drove to work or Bath, or Warwick Castle, etc. nailed them!

Notice that was 1989 and our return was 1993.

I don't believe Ferguson is why anyone assigned overseas not to wear uniforms while off base.

I believe that is the way of life and the Wing King/Queen is being protective like they were 20 years ago when they were an O1.
~ Just my guess.

Also, jmpo, but I don't understand why any officer stateside needs to hit LOWES, Walmart, Target on the way home in uniform.
~~ Sink clogged? Well, as a spouse it will still be clogged at 5, so do what we all did decades ago. Order pizza in!
~~ Toilet clogged? Use a plunger! What will you do when the hubby is deployed?

That is the military life as a spouse. They will be gone for months at a time. If you need hubby to pick up something on the way home from work, what will you do when he is deployed?

You are single ADAF, than come home change and run out, because it was clogged this a.m. and nobody used it.
~~You are overseas, chances are they have an amazing BX. Lakenheath is xallled Little America. There is no need to go off base for anything.

I just can't believe this is a knee jerk reaction for Ferguson. I believe they are using it to toughen up the members.
 
Last edited:
Pima said:
I don't know if regs have changed or maybe it was an AF thing back 20 years ago but upon arriving in Oct 89, they stripped the DOD decal and every service member at our base in the UK was told you DO NOT shop on the economy in uniform.
~ PCSing they wore civvies and their passport looked no different than any civilian.
~~ Only red flag was many of us had dogs in crates at check in or showed orders for baggage allowance Same as today.
~~~ We would laugh because let's see...our car is a left hand drive and the Brits have a right hand drive. How many Ford Mustangs, Chevy Camaros, or Dodge Ram trucks are in Europe, let alone the UK? Basically, the cars they drove to work or Bath, or Warwick Castle, etc. nailed them!

Notice that was 1989 and our return was 1993.

I don't believe Ferguson is why anyone assigned overseas not to wear uniforms while off base.

I believe that is the way of life and the Wing King/Queen is being protective like they were 20 years ago when they were an O1.
~ Just my guess.

Also, jmpo, but I don't understand why any officer stateside needs to hit LOWES, Walmart, Target on the way home in uniform.
~~ Sink clogged? Well, as a spouse it will still be clogged at 5, so do what we all did decades ago. Order pizza in!
~~ Toilet clogged? Use a plunger! What will you do when the hubby is deployed?

That is the military life as a spouse. They will be gone for months at a time. If you need hubby to pick up something on the way home from work, what will you do when he is deployed?

You are single ADAF, than come home change and run out, because it was clogged this a.m. and nobody used it.
~~You are overseas, chances are they have an amazing BX. Lakenheath is xallled Little America. There is no need to go off base for anything.

I just can't believe this is a knee jerk reaction for Ferguson. I believe they are using it to toughen up the members.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge this had nothing to do with Ferguson. My wife visited our DD in early Oct. and this is what she told my wife. The uniform issue was just announced this month after the incident in Turkey where 3 US sailors were attacked.
 
Just my personal opinion ( as well as many, many of my Missouri friends/small business owners) : If the news/media with their huge satellite trucks would just leave the immediate Ferguson area the violent demonstrators that are tearing up the community would quickly disappear into the night.:frown:

GO NAVY,

G5
 
My $.02 on this situation...

I think both sides (at least as presented by the media) are missing the problem here.

If someone on this board (I think there are a few) who have a background in Law Enforcement Training (on the civilian side not the Military), I'd like to hear whether my assumptions are correct.

I know for a fact that all police schools train officers on how to make stops of vehicles containing both of ordinary (think traffic ticket without other issues) and suspicious individuals.

I would also think (LEO training experts please confirm) that the also train officers on how to make stops of pedestrians as well.

Please note (at least from my reading of the story) that the officer made an initial contact when the 2 individuals were just walking down the middle of the street. Generally this presents a relatively low (only risks are that the individuals are unknown (friendly/unfriendly) and that the contact is mildly corrective) level of risk. The officer should come as close as necessary to instruct the individuals verbally to clear the street.

During that initial contact, the officer observed cigars and shortly afterwards remembered the strong-arm robbery. He called for backup (correct call). However, what I am failing to understand is why the officer approached individuals (2) one of which is significantly bigger than him in such a way as to make himself vulnerable to what (according to the officer's testimony) is an entirely preventable attack upon his person.

If he had driven past the suspects as reported and the suspects were not fleeing, there is no need to confront the suspects until your backup arrives unless they begin fleeing, in which case odds are pretty good the officer can chase down the 300+ pound suspect on foot at minimum.

And even if he needs to confront the suspects, (if they start getting nervous and evasive) why in the heck did he position his vehicle such that the suspect could block his exit from the vehicle? You'd think he'd have better training than that!

If a confrontation would have been required before backup was on hand, approaching the suspects on foot from an appropriate distance to confront them would have prevented the assault in the car. I would think that the suspect would not have tried to assault him in a more defensible (standing) position. And if approaching the suspects causes them to flee, this puts the officer at a greater advantage (a take-down from behind is far easier than when facing a suspect).

What I am saying here is that this was probably poorly handled by the officer up front resulting in a situation where deadly force became necessary.

The grand jury is only asked to determine if the use of deadly force was such that it justified a criminal charge. It does not address whether the officer did not follow protocols unless that failure itself violated a law (it may be unwise to confront a violent criminal from your seated position in your patrol car, but not a criminal offense).

What amazes me is that nobody in the media has asked these kinds of questions. Why are they not asking the police department about procedures? Why are they not asking about the officer's training on these procedures?

I'll tell you my opinion on that... Those questions are not the ones that keep the viewer ratings up. Riots and mayhem do. Poor training or lack of adherence to training standards are not things that anyone will listen to when buildings are on fire. And unfortunately, our greater population is a sucker for this media behavior.

Yeah there is a problem with the local police there. It isn't the racist gun-happy cops, but one of sloppy training and/or execution of procedure. I can't tell you which it is, but you'd think someone in the media might want to start asking these questions...
 
What this shows is a complete disrespect for other people, their property and a complete disrespect for police/authorities.

Anyone who carries a weapon especially a cop should get your complete attention and respect whether s/he is correct or not. The fault lies with society and no parental teachings.
 
Its events like this that sometimes make me wish I was an extremist. Life would be easier to grapple with if you are an extremist.

In this situation the nuances are so deep and varied, and when you can see all sides, it calls for deep reflection.

I think this post is worth reading:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...reflects-ferguson-viral-facebook-post-n257291

NFL Player Benjamin Watson Reflects on Ferguson in Viral Facebook Post
New Orleans Saints tight end Benjamin Watson tackled his conflicting feelings about Ferguson in a Facebook post that has gone viral. The 33-year-old father of four said he was inspired to write down his emotions after a grand jury decided Monday not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

As of Thursday afternoon, Watson's essay has been shared more than 378,000 times and garnered more than 670,000 "likes" on Facebook. Commentators are hailing him for being both objective and open in a case that has polarized people across the country.

At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:

I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.

I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.

I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.

I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.

I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.

I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.

I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.

I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.

I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.

I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.

I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT

I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope.
 
I read that yesterday and thought it was a great message.

I also read about Pharrell's position on Ferguson, which the way I read it was on the same line as what cga82 stated.

I agree with both of these celebrities.

JMPO, until we deal with socio economic issues, especially in our educational system, we will never see the end of racism.

I have worked in poor rural schools that were 95% minorities, and the problem doesn't start at 18, it starts when they are toddlers. Many are children of single mothers. These Moms are working two jobs to keep food on the table and a roof over their head. They don't have the time to go to Mommy and Me groups or pay for pre school. Then in elementary they are not able to double check homework and help study for the spelling test. It just starts the ball rolling academically where the child becomes further and further behind. Many than start acting out in the class room.

See where I am going with this? It all starts at a very young age impo.
 
Has President Obama ever told black youth kids to consider the military after HS? With the high youth lack unemployment rate the last 6 years, he should....
 
I would like to hear an account of a NG Soldier mobilized to the riots. Also I find it ironic "Anglos" have (one of) the loudest opinions of the racial climate in America.
 
JMPO, but I think we are at the tip of the iceberg.

The AG has a much higher bar to reach, and I don't see it happening against Officer Wilson. Maybe Feruson PD, but still that is a maybe!
The wrongful death lawsuit impo will probably settle out of court. Dr. Baden testified at the grand jury indictment that he was not shot in the back, but thought there was evidence of excessive force.
~According to the media, Wilson has a million dollar war chest for attorneys. The witnesses with multiple accounts regarding his hands can sway a civilian jury. Wilsons attorneys can show that they changed their testimonies. The fact that there was blood 25-35 feet farther away than the kill shot could say to them, he was indeed charging towards Wilson.
~~ With that war chest I just can't see a settlement not occurring.

Basically, the way I see it, there will be more unrest unless Ferguson PD and Wilson are hung out to dry.

I read on Dailymail today the saddest story regarding St. Louis. Zemir Begic was beaten to death in front of his wife by teens.

The other story coming out of St. Louis was the Rams entering with hands up!
~ I lost all respect for those players.
~~ I get the anger, but all you did was fuel the flames! Kids look up to them. Use your post game interviews to support your personal opinion...don't use the field and offend!

Flame on.
 
There won't be any federal indictments -- too much evidence that suggests that police officer could have at least subjectively felt threatened. The prosecutors used the grand jury quite effectively to essentially shift the decision and make the decision not to prosecute less prone to being attacked and less subject to intense outside criticism. Without such an intense and wide-spread groundswell of support that a miscarriage of justice has occurred (as was the case when an all-white Simi Valley jury acquitted police officers in the Rodney King case, prompting federal intervention), the feds won't get involved.

I agree that there could be a civil suit against the officer and the police department. The hurdle for the plaintiffs will be to try to show that there was (a) excessive force; (b) that it was attributable to a negligent lack of training by the municipality; and (c) that there was a racial component (this to allow use of federal civil rights statutes allowing suits against state and local gov'ts). Those are not insignificant hurdles, even though the standard of proof for the plaintiffs is different (essentially, they have to prevail 51% - 49% as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt"). The deep pockets here are with the municipality and its insurance coverage, not the individual police officer, which is why the plaintiffs will try so hard to show institutional failure leading to a civilly wrongful act with a racial motive (to bring themselves within the area of post-Civil War era statutes that allowed civil suits against municipal employees for intentional deprivation of civil rights). But, again, that can be a tough hurdle.

Because civil suits are so, so expensive, and the municipality cannot recover its attorneys' fees even were it to win the case (if the plaintiffs win under a civil rights theory, they could get fees, however), there would be considerable pressure for the town to at least make an offer. If the family is holding out for a huge sum or wants vindication through a trial, then it would be more drawn out and harder to predict an outcome (particularly in light of the potential for an appeal by the losing side).

That's my prediction, anyway.

I don't mind the football gesture -- there's a long history of using sports to make a point (including Tebowing) and those guys felt they wanted to make such a point. The NFL is the most conservative league around and even they're smart enough not to touch the issue with a 10-foot pole (and "NFL" and "smart" haven't appeared in the same sentence too often lately).
 
goaliedad said:
My $.02 on this situation...

I think both sides (at least as presented by the media) are missing the problem here.

If someone on this board (I think there are a few) who have a background in Law Enforcement Training (on the civilian side not the Military), I'd like to hear whether my assumptions are correct.

I know for a fact that all police schools train officers on how to make stops of vehicles containing both of ordinary (think traffic ticket without other issues) and suspicious individuals.

I would also think (LEO training experts please confirm) that the also train officers on how to make stops of pedestrians as well.

Please note (at least from my reading of the story) that the officer made an initial contact when the 2 individuals were just walking down the middle of the street. Generally this presents a relatively low (only risks are that the individuals are unknown (friendly/unfriendly) and that the contact is mildly corrective) level of risk. The officer should come as close as necessary to instruct the individuals verbally to clear the street.

During that initial contact, the officer observed cigars and shortly afterwards remembered the strong-arm robbery. He called for backup (correct call). However, what I am failing to understand is why the officer approached individuals (2) one of which is significantly bigger than him in such a way as to make himself vulnerable to what (according to the officer's testimony) is an entirely preventable attack upon his person.

If he had driven past the suspects as reported and the suspects were not fleeing, there is no need to confront the suspects until your backup arrives unless they begin fleeing, in which case odds are pretty good the officer can chase down the 300+ pound suspect on foot at minimum.

And even if he needs to confront the suspects, (if they start getting nervous and evasive) why in the heck did he position his vehicle such that the suspect could block his exit from the vehicle? You'd think he'd have better training than that!

If a confrontation would have been required before backup was on hand, approaching the suspects on foot from an appropriate distance to confront them would have prevented the assault in the car. I would think that the suspect would not have tried to assault him in a more defensible (standing) position. And if approaching the suspects causes them to flee, this puts the officer at a greater advantage (a take-down from behind is far easier than when facing a suspect).

What I am saying here is that this was probably poorly handled by the officer up front resulting in a situation where deadly force became necessary.

The grand jury is only asked to determine if the use of deadly force was such that it justified a criminal charge. It does not address whether the officer did not follow protocols unless that failure itself violated a law (it may be unwise to confront a violent criminal from your seated position in your patrol car, but not a criminal offense).

What amazes me is that nobody in the media has asked these kinds of questions. Why are they not asking the police department about procedures? Why are they not asking about the officer's training on these procedures?

I'll tell you my opinion on that... Those questions are not the ones that keep the viewer ratings up. Riots and mayhem do. Poor training or lack of adherence to training standards are not things that anyone will listen to when buildings are on fire. And unfortunately, our greater population is a sucker for this media behavior.

Yeah there is a problem with the local police there. It isn't the racist gun-happy cops, but one of sloppy training and/or execution of procedure. I can't tell you which it is, but you'd think someone in the media might want to start asking these questions...
Click to expand...

AcademyFriend1 said:
There won't be any federal indictments -- too much evidence that suggests that police officer could have at least subjectively felt threatened. The prosecutors used the grand jury quite effectively to essentially shift the decision and make the decision not to prosecute less prone to being attacked and less subject to intense outside criticism. Without such an intense and wide-spread groundswell of support that a miscarriage of justice has occurred (as was the case when an all-white Simi Valley jury acquitted police officers in the Rodney King case, prompting federal intervention), the feds won't get involved.

I agree that there could be a civil suit against the officer and the police department. The hurdle for the plaintiffs will be to try to show that there was (a) excessive force; (b) that it was attributable to a negligent lack of training by the municipality; and (c) that there was a racial component (this to allow use of federal civil rights statutes allowing suits against state and local gov'ts). Those are not insignificant hurdles, even though the standard of proof for the plaintiffs is different (essentially, they have to prevail 51% - 49% as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt"). The deep pockets here are with the municipality and its insurance coverage, not the individual police officer, which is why the plaintiffs will try so hard to show institutional failure leading to a civilly wrongful act with a racial motive (to bring themselves within the area of post-Civil War era statutes that allowed civil suits against municipal employees for intentional deprivation of civil rights). But, again, that can be a tough hurdle.

Because civil suits are so, so expensive, and the municipality cannot recover its attorneys' fees even were it to win the case (if the plaintiffs win under a civil rights theory, they could get fees, however), there would be considerable pressure for the town to at least make an offer. If the family is holding out for a huge sum or wants vindication through a trial, then it would be more drawn out and harder to predict an outcome (particularly in light of the potential for an appeal by the losing side).

That's my prediction, anyway.

I don't mind the football gesture -- there's a long history of using sports to make a point (including Tebowing) and those guys felt they wanted to make such a point. The NFL is the most conservative league around and even they're smart enough not to touch the issue with a 10-foot pole (and "NFL" and "smart" haven't appeared in the same sentence too often lately).
Click to expand...

You touched upon what I thought was the real issue with the incident in Ferguson - proper execution of a stop of a pedestrian.

Whether the city is responsible depends upon who is responsible for basic police training in Missouri. In my state, there are a dozen or so state-certified police schools which an officer must be certified by. Some are operated by cities/counties. Others are run at state colleges. I kind of doubt Ferguson runs its own academy. The question here is who does and did it provide the officer the proper training for such a foreseeable stop? And if he was trained, did his department require adequate continuing training? What is the standard for that in Missouri?

Most municipalities carry insurance to cover the costs of this kind of litigation. The question is will the insurer decide it is cheaper to settle (if the plaintiffs are of that ilk) or whether someone is trying to use this as a test case for this type of event?
 

If he had driven past the suspects as reported and the suspects were not fleeing, there is no need to confront the suspects until your backup arrives unless they begin fleeing, in which case odds are pretty good the officer can chase down the 300+ pound suspect on foot at minimum.

And even if he needs to confront the suspects, (if they start getting nervous and evasive) why in the heck did he position his vehicle such that the suspect could block his exit from the vehicle? You'd think he'd have better training than that!

If a confrontation would have been required before backup was on hand, approaching the suspects on foot from an appropriate distance to confront them would have prevented the assault in the car. I would think that the suspect would not have tried to assault him in a more defensible (standing) position. And if approaching the suspects causes them to flee, this puts the officer at a greater advantage (a take-down from behind is far easier than when facing a suspect).

What I am saying here is that this was probably poorly handled by the officer up front resulting in a situation where deadly force became necessary.

It is my understanding that the Ferguson police attend the St Louis County police academy.

From what I read the police officer (i hate the term cops, to me it shows dis-respect) backed passed the suspects to cut off their path. Typically if someone is going to run they will go the opposite direction of the police, so you wouldn't want to be too far away from them. In this instance the suspect came towards the officer and kicked the door shut on his cruiser as he attempted to open it and get out to talk to them.

Excessive force, possibly. However, police are trained to make sure a suspect stops advancing if being charged by them especially if he feels his life is in danger. That may mean unloading their weapon on them.

I want to know why more attention is not being paid to the fact that the suspect just committed a strong arm robbery. A crime that is easily repeatable if no one reports them. And if the suspect had such great respect for law enforcement as his mother stated why did he commit a crime to begin with and why was he in the middle of the street and didn't get to the side walk when told to and why did he reach inside the police officers car and hit him.

I live about 3 hrs from St Louis and quite frankly the media attention to all the police bashing activities going on and how the African Americans that are protesting not only in St Louis but in other cities are all so afraid of police that they fear for their lives is sickening.

Let's take the police out of the equation and you have the riots and looting that you see on TV.
 
Vista123 said:
On one hand all evidenced indicates that the police officer followed protocol, on the other hand the real crime is the historical racism, neglect, and long term systemic discrimination endemic St. Louis.
Click to expand...


goaliedad said:
what I thought was the real issue with the incident in Ferguson - proper execution of a stop of a pedestrian.
Click to expand...

The "real" issue in this case is that an 18 year-old adult committed a robbery (no matter the $ amount of the items taken, he used force to effect his theft = felony robbery). Moments later, he had a chance encounter with a police officer. His aggression, which was videotaped only moments before, caused him to make a stupid decision (or a series of stupid decisions) that cost him his life. He's only a hero or a tragic loss to those willfully ignorant of the facts. Good riddance.

The statutes and rules differ slightly by state and agency, but generally, a law enforcement officer is allowed to use deadly force when has reasonable belief that the subject of such deadly force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another person.

If that's how Officer Wilson was trained, how was he negligent in his actions? He's had a physical confrontation with a subject at the vehicle and after giving verbal commands (part of the force continuum) for the subject to stop, the subject instead turns around and charges the officer. It is not the police officer's duty to retreat.

Lot of armchair QB's on this one. And people wracked with CNN induced overloads of white guilt.

Brown's family will get money. That's how lawyers play the game. Settle to save the cost of litigation.
 
QA1517 said:

If he had driven past the suspects as reported and the suspects were not fleeing, there is no need to confront the suspects until your backup arrives unless they begin fleeing, in which case odds are pretty good the officer can chase down the 300+ pound suspect on foot at minimum.

And even if he needs to confront the suspects, (if they start getting nervous and evasive) why in the heck did he position his vehicle such that the suspect could block his exit from the vehicle? You'd think he'd have better training than that!

If a confrontation would have been required before backup was on hand, approaching the suspects on foot from an appropriate distance to confront them would have prevented the assault in the car. I would think that the suspect would not have tried to assault him in a more defensible (standing) position. And if approaching the suspects causes them to flee, this puts the officer at a greater advantage (a take-down from behind is far easier than when facing a suspect).

What I am saying here is that this was probably poorly handled by the officer up front resulting in a situation where deadly force became necessary.

It is my understanding that the Ferguson police attend the St Louis County police academy.

From what I read the police officer (i hate the term cops, to me it shows dis-respect) backed passed the suspects to cut off their path. Typically if someone is going to run they will go the opposite direction of the police, so you wouldn't want to be too far away from them. In this instance the suspect came towards the officer and kicked the door shut on his cruiser as he attempted to open it and get out to talk to them.

Excessive force, possibly. However, police are trained to make sure a suspect stops advancing if being charged by them especially if he feels his life is in danger. That may mean unloading their weapon on them.

I want to know why more attention is not being paid to the fact that the suspect just committed a strong arm robbery. A crime that is easily repeatable if no one reports them. And if the suspect had such great respect for law enforcement as his mother stated why did he commit a crime to begin with and why was he in the middle of the street and didn't get to the side walk when told to and why did he reach inside the police officers car and hit him.

I live about 3 hrs from St Louis and quite frankly the media attention to all the police bashing activities going on and how the African Americans that are protesting not only in St Louis but in other cities are all so afraid of police that they fear for their lives is sickening.

Let's take the police out of the equation and you have the riots and looting that you see on TV.
Click to expand...

Sledge said:
The "real" issue in this case is that an 18 year-old adult committed a robbery (no matter the $ amount of the items taken, he used force to effect his theft = felony robbery). Moments later, he had a chance encounter with a police officer. His aggression, which was videotaped only moments before, caused him to make a stupid decision (or a series of stupid decisions) that cost him his life. He's only a hero or a tragic loss to those willfully ignorant of the facts. Good riddance.

The statutes and rules differ slightly by state and agency, but generally, a law enforcement officer is allowed to use deadly force when has reasonable belief that the subject of such deadly force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another person.

If that's how Officer Wilson was trained, how was he negligent in his actions? He's had a physical confrontation with a subject at the vehicle and after giving verbal commands (part of the force continuum) for the subject to stop, the subject instead turns around and charges the officer. It is not the police officer's duty to retreat.

Lot of armchair QB's on this one. And people wracked with CNN induced overloads of white guilt.

Brown's family will get money. That's how lawyers play the game. Settle to save the cost of litigation.
Click to expand...

If after the initial interaction the suspects were not fleeing, why the need to circle around and confront strong-arm robbery suspects who appear to have greater physical capacity before your backup unit arrives? And then, why pull up so close that you risk being confronted IN your vehicle? Another 25-50 feet does add to the chase if they turn and run, but the primary suspect was 300 lbs. The officer in question looks like he could have chased him down in less than 150 feet.

What I'm saying here is that absent the initial confrontation in the vehicle, the outcome would have probably been FAR different. Probably a short chase and takedown. Officers are trained to takedown larger suspects on foot, but when given an option of waiting for backup, numbers are always preferable. It is much harder to take them down from the seat of your cruiser.

Once the suspect reaches for an officer's gun, the officer is entitled to use deadly force if the suspect makes any motion that could be interpreted as a threat to the officer's safety. No problem with the actions once that happened. My problem is that the initial confrontation where the officer put himself too close to the suspect to be able to exit his vehicle leaving himself in a vulnerable position. To me this is just poor judgement/execution of the situation.

Whether St Louis County instructs their trainees as to how much distance to give when cutting off suspects in a robbery, I would think that an officer would have some sense of not wanting to be confronted in his vehicle. I don't have the answers as to why this occurred, but I think that policies/training surrounding capturing suspect should center around minimizing the risk of injury to officers first by gaining numbers and then by acquiring defensible positions before any confrontation. Capture is secondary to officer safety.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the reaction in the community is not appropriate and I'm upset that the authorities on hand did not have plenty of video going to track down the hoodlums destroying the city...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top