I've watched the events in Ferguson with a little detachment. I think we're seeing the beginnings of protests about the economy. The incident is simply a cover for other issues.
I watched the interview with Officer Wilson. I'm on the opposite side of the majority of my audience here. The story sounds flaky as hell. The shooting might have been justified, we'll never really know, but his telling of events is just off as fuck.
But ignoring all of that.
This should catch everyone's attention and the focus should shift to national security and the vulnerability of today's youth to glom onto whatever the hot thing is...and ISIS' ability to tailor their message to appeal to them. Check this out from the Daily Mail...
The note Hussain posted on Twitter today is titled 'From #IS 2 Ferguson' and contains a promise to send militants to the Missouri city if protesters pledge allegiance to ISIS.You can ignore the implications if you like but I hope security professionals aren't.
It reads: 'We hear you and we will help you if you accept Islam and reject corrupt man-made laws like democracy and pledge your allegiance to Caliph Abu Bakr and then we will shed our blood for you and send our soldiers that don't sleep, whose drink is blood, and their play is carnage.'
Underneath the picture Hussain tweeted: 'Accept Islam & give bayah [allegiance] to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi & then we will send u soldiers that don't sleep! - #IS #Ferguson'.
The note was accompanied by a photograph of a number of masked young men posing with assault rifles and mobile phone cases bearing the black and white logo of the Islamic State.
It is understood the men in the photograph are militants based in ISIS-held areas of Syria and Iraq, and that one of the men is 20-year-old Hussain.
Another militant, who uses the Twitter handle @Abu 3antar Britani and is also thought to be British, tweeted: 'From #IS to #Ferguson we heard your call and we are ready to respond! #FergusonDecision #BeLikeMalcolmX #FightBack'.
Juvenile unemployment is high.
Black and Hispanic youth unemployment is in the stratosphere.
The Islamic State has a tailor made audience for their message, these people feel alienated from society, have high energy and like all young men are looking for a cause to believe in AND fight for.
How they gonna do that?
ReplyDeleteDid you see the Kalashnikov crossing swords with the M16 in the second picture. As if ISIS is a hybrid.
ReplyDeleteAbu Hussain al Britani......does that translate into Father of Hussain from Britain?
ReplyDeleteNot exactly ... in this instance, 'Abu' doesn't mean 'father' or 'father of', it's more an honorific title that you put before the actual name ... like the 'honourable Hussain al Britani' ... the name that follows 'Abu' can refer to a quality that the person is supposed to posess, in this case 'hussain' referring to a 'good' person, or goodlooking ... So you could translate Abu Hussain al Britani into 'the honourable good-looking guy from Britain' ! To me, sounds like a narcissistic egomaniac on a power trip ... he would look more handsome to me with a bullet hole in the forehead
DeleteCannot comment on the probablity of Catholic Hispanic youth converting to Islam, even though they are poor and unemployed. Though the last time hispanics did have a large scale "Interaction" with Islam was during the Moor period in Spain.
ReplyDeleteconverting and believing in was an extremely poor choice of words on my part. how about making money by committing criminal acts for an ideological institution that is at war with local police, federal security and the govt in general?
DeleteYup, now that is something we all can comment on a lot.
DeleteConversion isn't as likely as just looking to make money and exploit, especially if there is a beef with the "man". It's just simple human nature.
DeleteIDK, the Latinos in my area seem to be fully employed, albeit in fairly low skilled occupations. The issue in Ferguson and in most areas where there is a large concentration of low/no income black residents is more of a cultural problem than a racial problem. There is a segment of white society that hates anyone unlike themselves: Asian, Latinos, Jews, etc., yet many members of these minority groups assimilate and succeed. Until everybody can agree on this, the pass on knucklehead behavior will continue.
ReplyDeleteI read the grand jury testimony tonight. It pretty much corroborates Officer Wilson's testimony.
ReplyDeleteThe protests around the US today were actually minor. But some dead enders and anarchists might find the ISIS/ISIL message attractive.
I agree that the real issue is the economy and the self destruction of the inner city. The cops aren't the problem. Cops go where the crime is.
did you watch the interview? have you read reports of actual attacks on law enforcement? have you talked to guys who have had real deal snatch attempts on them?
Deletethey sound nothing like what he described. just listening to his account had we bullshit meter spiking...what criminal acts that way? you attempt to take an officers weapon and then break contact and when they approach again you charge? seriously? really? the guy wasn't on meth so you can't blame drugs.
the whole thing is a mess and the St Louis county law enforcement/judicial system looks suspect to me.
You saw the video of the guy stealing in the store? The words "thug" come to mind. He didn't shoplift, he just took the stuff and when the clerk tried to stop him, he simply threatened the clerk with his physical size. I'm not surprised that he'll charge a cop. Big sized brutish thug describes Brown to a T.
DeleteWilson's story is pure farcical BS.
ReplyDeleteWhether he believes it or not, it never happened like he claims.
A trial would have fleshed that out.
No we're left with no further recourse.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side
As for a potential IS(IUS), that would be a perfect storm. And the number of people here ready to play cowboys and jihadis would come as a rude awakening, but I'm not eager to watch the game played on our home turf, unless it finally induces some adult leadership somewhere to go weapons-free on certain foreign cities with "special" weapons.
But playing whack-a-mole with those turds is not something serious people want to have to grapple with.
you hit my main worry square on the head. we have to seriously look at the possibility of people with no money and no options actually taking ISIS up on its word. you commit a criminal act we pay you a fee oh and we'll let Council of American Islamic Relations will serve as the middle men when it comes to getting you the money.
Deleteits just too plausible a scenario.
the wild west is coming to the USA. its inevitable.
We in India also strictly monitor all such monetary transfers originating from the gulf and heading towards institutions of a slightly religious nature like law panel boards, religious schools etc.
DeleteUnbelievable things do happen. Now you are wrong that a trial would have brought more out. A defense attorney would get things suppressed and be able to cross the witnesses that no one crossed. Though I did hear the physical evidence did nullify many accounts and many finally said they just heard or thought it happened that way.
DeleteAlso it is possible one of the witnesses that confirmed Wilson's account was murdered the first night of riots.
unbelievable things do happen? i did hear? its possible? so much equivocation when so many are trying to feed the meme that this was an open and shut case. and that's the point. it was anything but. additionally i would bet body parts that the DA has gotten indictments from less than he had going against Wilson.
Deleteagain. i don't know what happened on that day. what i do know is that Wilson's story reeks of bullshit.
I'm not saying it's not weird. He was high so that can account for weird behavior. A very interesting statistic though is there were 162,000 cases brought before grand juries only 11 were turned down to be prosicuted. Grand jury only has to reach a level of 51% belief that a crime occurred.
Deletehis autopsy didn't indicate drugs in his system....and marijuana is not a stimulant...the stuff that Wilson is talking about is PCP land so yeah, its beyond weird. its fucking unlikely. additionally Brown wasn't a hardened criminal so that rules out fear to go back to prison because of a third strike.
Deletejust admit it Tony. your bullshit meter is spiking too. if it isn't then to be honest i have to question your credibility. i have tons of people that come here that operate from conventional wisdom and run with the herd. if you don't see somethign funny in what Wilson had to say then you need to be extra careful on the streets.
Ok I finally watched the interview all the way through. I think it would be better to see the whole 1.5hrs of raw footage. By his response you can tell he has been heavily coach by an attorney. If you notice his inflection never really goes up or down. Heck I wonder if he had taken meds to stay that calm.
DeleteNow about your point of Isis using something like the riots or perceived injustice as a way to get youth to their side I think it could work. Or they may use this as a proxy style insurgancy. They could just fund anarchist style groups and train them. It seems more and more college age or younger think America is what is wrong with the world.
The problem in prosecuting Wilson - which would be unjust in my view - is the discontinuity between various witness statements. There is physical evidence that corroborates Wilson's testimony, as well as the majority of witness statements. The minority of witness statement support what was widely broadcast by - again in my view - irresponsible media coverage that failed to seek out firsthand sources. After a few days, coverage - and particularly analysis - was mainly agenda driven depending upon the news outlet and pressure group / organization.
DeleteHaving said all this, it seems clear to me that the Ferguson Police Department needs new leadership, and a change in its culture - all easy to say, but difficult to implement. It is hard to hire qualified black officers due to a number of reasons - mostly academic and criminal/drug histories - but also because of a cultural distrust of authorities. Again, that culture "thing." It's a very complex problem which cannot be solved by throwing even more money at it, and demanding respect. Both have to be earned. The answer has to come from within.
the latest shooting of a black 12 years old kid carrying a toygun will feed this fire.. my paranoid side of me side all of this was somehow planned by evil elites trying to provoke race wars inside american cities , but my other side said is is just one of the fruits of the american police's increasingly militaristic behaviour toward minority citizens..
ReplyDeleteone thing for sure, someone will use the chaos for their own gain, to ride then public anger and disappointment with the goverment , justified or not..
nightmare scenario : what if other nation intelligence assests covertly arm these guys with heavy armament ? let's just say they are returning the usual US funded color revolution back to american population...
So a kid points what appears to be a real gun at police and gets shot and it's the police fault??
Deletenot so cut and dry Tony and you know it. how many kids have pointed what appears to be real weapons at you while playing cops and robbers. the difference? this guy was spooled up since his academy days to believe that any weapon seen means you shoot.
Deleteif every street cop in America thought the same way we'd be seeing hospitals filled with little boys being shot to death. you know it and so do i, so don't repeat the party line dude! i mean seriously? really? he won't be charged but we know it ain't right.
I'm not repeating the party line. Trust me I would have to admit I would hesitate if a kid pulled a BB gun that looked like a 1911 on me, but that is a big risk. I have had many children 5 and up tell me they hate the police, because they are raised to hate us.
DeleteI will say there is a difference between a realistic looking BBGun and most of what's out there. In roll calls we are given the FBI Intel about the gunsidified to look like Nerf guns and how many bad guys are painting the tips of their guns red or orange to make officers hesitate.
My take on it, in most countries (talking about law abiding democracies), when someone is shot (12 times) and killed by police, there is no chance this is not going to trial ... So without taking sides or accusing officer Wilson of anything, i would say the death of a teenager in circumstances that raise some questions would at least have deserved a trial.
DeleteEstablished law long ago has concluded that toy guns are considered deadly weapons because an officer has little or no time to evaluate it before deciding on a course of action. Even ridiculous squirt guns have resulted in the police shooting an otherwise unarmed/not particular bright subject. However the optics of a cop shooting a kid with a toy gun is never good.
DeleteWell this post and your subsequent comments were the final straw, Solomon. Your Anti-Cop, Anti-Wilson BS is exactly that. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about when it comes to this subject.
ReplyDeleteYou should stick to posting on mil stuff, because you don't know dick about LE or LE tactics or training.
i'm not anti-cop, i just don't like militarized police, no knock raids on law abiding citizens, the use of law enforcement as a revenue generating device by cities and basically dicks. i'm not anti-Wilson, i just think the story he told was bullshit, his tick-tock of the events leading up to the shooting is extremely suspect and i think the DA half assed his job.
Deletewhat i never said, not even once was that this was a bad shoot.
you're being reactionary and emotional instead of looking at this with clear eyes. i do the same thing with subjects that are near and dear to my heart.
but if this is the final straw then so be it. have a good life.
Sol, take a look at this chart of TASR. The stock has been going nuts because they sell a 500 dollar camera system that cops wear as either glasses or attached to their quests. When the cop gets back after each day you put the camera into a holder and it automatically uploads the video to the cloud. Studies so far show amazing reduction in police use of force incidents when these camera systems are worn. Often times you get a 50 percent or more reduction in use of force incidents. Also you don't have to deal with criminals crying wolf when nothing happened. I think in 5 years ever cop in America will be wearing one. Here's a good article from the New York Times on this. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html?_r=2&
DeleteThebronze Sol is not anti cop. Do I agree with some of his perceptions of law enforcement heck no. Thebronze you have to realize the immense amount of propaganda out there that is anti police. The videos they circulate makes police look bad to anyone that does not know police procedures. No unless Sol goes with the whole fight the police or kill them he is just expressing an honest feeling he has. The Koch brothers are who fund the anti police crowd through cop block.
DeleteSaying all that though Sol has posted many things that have been supportive of police.
William their cameras are crap and the upload system is their week link. agencies are going to go broke paying for server space and the docks for the camera can only load 1 camera at a time. In my agency only 1/4 in patrol have the cameras and sometimes the video never gets uploaded to the cloud by the time an officer comes back in for his next shift. maybe in 5 to 10 years there will be a system good enough to work reliably. Until then I see the potential for a further divide in trust if an incident happens and the damn camera doesn't work. Also juries will come to expect video evidence or they wont convict someone. They already think police can do what they see on CSI which has made it almost impossible to get some convictions now.
Very interesting Tony. Is there a better system out there?
DeleteNot yet, but it will take time. Right now there are major concerns with how to implement them and how good does the camera need to be.
DeleteDo you need a camera with the same area as a person can see and limited to the light collecting ability of a person or do we want cameras with wider angles and better light gathering capabilities. Again this brings in perception of the anti's that love to use feeling over fact. If you have the state of the art and it can see better than you than lets say someone pulls an object out that in the light you may believe is a gun or darn well could be and you shoot the guy, but the camera clearly shows it was a cellphone or something. The officers actions may be judged on what the camera could see and not what he could actually see.
You have privacy concerns for those that call the police who shouldn't have their lives posted on Youtube, but there are youtube channels dedicated to getting video and posting every second of it.
Also copblock the same people instigating the mistrust already have propaganda about how police "use" the cameras to cover up their own actions. They just like the ability to have their own edited version of events.
The good of the cameras is how the public reacts when they know we have one. They generally do act better and are less hostile though the stupid things they do is still resist while saying " I'm not resisting" as having that recorded makes their case better.
While technically Wilson was doing everything right after conflict begun, what exactly caused the conflict?
ReplyDeleteWhy Wilson confronted two ghetto residents alone? Where was his partner? He is a professional policeman and knows that ghetto residents cannot be expected to "behave".
If there was two policeman in the police car most likely there weren't any conflict at all, or at least one of the policemen could use non lethal weapons to subdue Brown without killing him.
Good question, but even if it was standard procedure for the local police to have officers on patrol alone, i still haven'tt figured out why twelve shots were fired out of officer Wilson's service weapon.
DeleteNow some might argue I know nothing about LE tactics in the US, which is true - I don't, but i know a couple of things about firing bullets into people ... and this is why I can't get it out of my head that twelve rounds at close range... definitely sounds weird.
Maybe i don't know shit but still,a trial might have given answers to questions citizens are entitled to ask, even if at the end of it, there's a not guilty verdict, which would be perfectly all right for me.
When was the last time you saw a perfect world? No plan survives contact with the enemy is more accurately reflected as no plan survives contact with reality.
Delete@ Owl: is that a question for Twixter or for me ? Personally, I would agree basically with nothing perfect in this world, but you're not saying "shit happens" and that's it, are you ?
DeleteSorry Hec, when I was typing a reply, your post was not up yet.
DeleteAs for going solo, well, there is a financial crisis going on in the US government, might have had side effects in manpower. Or for all we know, it could have been a peaceful town until now. We need more info before we can make a call on what went wrong. And remember, hindsight is always 20/20. We could have had a town where the biggest crime was a house painted pink for 20 years, then "Boom!". Would heavy patrols have been justified for 20 years when nothing happens?
There is also a question that those of us outside the US have to ask. How much of it is racism? Not from the police but from the minority? I've this very sneaky suspicion that even if a black guy was shot dead using an M2 to decorate the Capitol with bullet holes, a significant population of blacks will still say he was set up.
In the US, we don't try people (anymore, with isolated exceptions) who are obviously innocent - those are know as "show" trials, and are usually - if not always - politically driven. This is one reason why there are grand juries, which are designed to weed out cases that will most likely be lost by the government. Even then, the standard (quality) of evidence to indict is set at a lower bar than to convict at trial. Bottom line: if the evidence is insufficient in its veracity to garner a grand jury indictment, there is little chance for conviction at trial. But pressure groups and litigation attorneys who stand to gain something by demanding a trial and undermining the grand jury process are doing further harm to the black community's trust in the greater justice system. As for the pressure groups, that's what they do. As for the attorneys, they are sworn officers of the court, and have an ethical duty to protect the judicial system (I know, lawyers and ethics...)
Delete@ Owl: Roger that !
Delete@ Charley: thx for clarifying the basics ! I totally get the point about the risk of interest groups trying to hijack the whole procedure in order to push their own agenda. However i'm not very familiar with grand jury hearings, so if you can clarify some more, that would be very much appreciated. For example, who presents the case to the grand jury ? Is it the DA/prosecutor alone, or is the (alleged) victim represented as well, to point out to some inconsistencies maybe in police or balistic or reports, or just to raise questions about reliability of testimonies ? Can experts be called to testify, in order to confirm or object to "official" version of events ? Or is it just up to the DA to collect the various reports and witness testimonies, then present the case on its merits and leave it up to the jury to indict or not ?
Apologies for my ignorance ... One flaw I see in the explanation of grand jury rationale, is that cases "likely" to be lost are not going on trial this way. But if they don't go to trial, you will never know if there will be a conviction, just a probable outcome based or not on facts presented to grand jury. Dismisses the fact that sometimes new evidence comes to light in the course of the trial, or things presented as evidence at first are contradicted by other findings.
Finally, one last comment, and then i will shut up on this topic. I'm speaking here from a "perceptions" point of view in the community that feels hard done by. Now it's certainly different when you confront a community/population as part of military operation, but still, creating a "feeling" of injustice can be quite dangerous, as it's a very easy route to antagonizing whole communities, especially with interest groups or just radical individuals in the background trying to pour petrol onto an already burning fire.
This is why I still think a trial would have been the best way to deflect as much as possible this volatile situation in Ferguson. So even if the procedure per se was absolutely legal, i'm sure the DA or whoever could have taken that in consideration when making his case. But then again, as Owl would say, nothing perfect in this world.
Hecate. The prosecutor and the Grand Jury are allowed to ask questions and that is it. In the US felonies go before a grand jury. I can not confirm the number, but I have read where 162,000 were convened in a past year and did not pass 11 on to trial. The Grand Jury will pass on to trial a case where they feel 51% or better the person to be on trial committed a crime. There is actually more that can be brought out in the grand jury in the way they did it than in an actual trial. What hurt any case against the officer is the number of "witnesses" that out right lied.
Deleteyou're pushing another falsehood Tony. you say witnesses lie? psychologist would tell you differently. witnesses make mistakes! you've seen the studies. you know the real story about witnesses. have people involved in a controlled study where they're told to say what they see when a person runs into a room waving a gun while wearing a chicken suit and you'll get different stories across the board.
Deletemy question is simple. WHY ARE YOU USING FALSE INFORMATION TO PUSH YOUR VERSION OF THIS EVENT????? you're not being honest at all, you're spouting conventional wisdom. YOU"RE NOT USING YOUR FUCKING BRAIN TO PROPERLY ANALYZE THIS ISSUE! why? what's going on with you that you refuse to use the knowledge and experience that you have in when looking at this?
I was talking about the ones that lied about seeing any of it.
DeleteOh I completely get the whole unreliability of what witnesses think they saw. Heck you have the same thing with officers involved in high stress incidents. It takes 3days or better to remember what happened. We are told to wait for a lawyer and give a general discription of what happened until a few days later. Best advice I was given was to call for an ambulance and tell them you were just involved in a shooting and need something to calm your nerves. Now you are on some form of narcotic and your account is not reliable. I will preference this was told to me by a former ATF special agent who trains a lot u north where everyone who shoots someone is considered guilty until proven innocent.
Delete@ Tony: thx for info regarding grand jury procedure. As for witnesses, think we all agree that inconsistencies between various witness accounts can have several reasons. You and Sol summed it up, nothing to add to it. But given you are in LE, I would be interested in your take in general on rules and practise regarding armed response to a threat. I'm just talking in general, dont want to get into ferguson case in particular.
DeleteThe reason I'm asking is because in conventional military operations, unless there is specific reason, the goal is to inflict maximum casualty with minimal losses or risks for your own safety. Now this basic rule of course doesn't apply to counter-insurgency tactics, and even less so to operations in urban environment, where we often operate at a cross-roads between military procedures and police work (like crowd control, arresting target/suspects, etc.).
What i gathered from it, is that you adapt your response to the level of the threat and the goal is always to diffuse a situation or neutralize a suspect with the minimal amount of force necessary. So here comes the question, i'll phrase it in general terms: are there 'rules of engagement' in US LE that allow for use of potentially lethal force whatever the level of the threat ? Or more precisely, discharging your weapon several times, when one or two rounds should be enough, can be ruled acceptable ?
You see where i'm getting at, but that is based solely on what i've read in papers and seen in the news, so if i got the info wrong, feel free to rectify.
@Hecate: Yes, our ultimate goal is to use the least amount of force necessary to effect an arrest or whatever we want the outcome to be. It used to be taught as force continuum. The minimum force an officer can use is their mere presence next would be verbal commands, then soft open hand control( joint manipulations/slap), next would be hard open hand control (punches and kicks), then you have weapons pepper spray, taser, and baton, last you have deadly force. Now in my department our continuum was written different. Basically put pepper spray and the taser next to hard open hand control and leave the baton just before deadly force. The reason is the taser and pepper spray have a less chance of inflicting permanent or prolonged damage as punching or kicking someone would. The problem with this method was it was hard to teach juries that just because the continuum steps up that if a bad guy tries to punch us we don't need to take all the steps up to get to baton strikes which is one level above hard strikes. Now remember that even with just hard strikes as in a regular fist fight that also becomes different in levels of force to be used. If an 8yr old is punching an officer a reasonable officer would come to use soft open hand control to grab the child. Now when you get to teenage and adult things could change. You have the smaller guys that can punch you and it won't due much damage. Then there are the guys big enough to knock you out. At the point someone that big begins to fight deadly force maybe used. Why? because it only takes 1 punch to knock you out then he can take your gun and shoot you or someone else. by this scenario smaller guys and females generally are given a wider latitude to escalate to a higher level of force to gain control.
DeleteSo with that it is a very fuzzy subject when lethal force can be used. The way the courts have determined it police are judged by their prior experience and training then they apply the totality of the circumstance and try to determine if a reasonable officer given all their training, experience, and variable of the situation would have used deadly force. an example would be a local officer was jumped by 6 or so high school kids. He attempted to fight them off, but when he no longer could protect himself he pulled his gun and shot the first guy he could that was assaulting him. He could no longer protect himself and was at risk of not being able to fight back having his gun taken away or just being knocked out, but many times its more cut and dry because weapons are involved. Oh there is also a ruling that officers do not have to wait to be assaulted before firing. So for instance someone reaches under their shirt or jacket and began making a move as if they were pulling a gun. Deadly force can be used before an object in his hands can be seen.
Remember I am not a Use of force instructor so I am no expert in these matters.
As far as deadly force and the number of rounds fired we are taught to fire until the threat has stopped. So an officer can fire 1 shot or 50 if that is what it takes to stop the threat. I have seen video of 1 shot working and someone being shot 20 times and it had little effect until they bled out.
Further remember it takes the brain time to react to what it sees and hears. So the guy could begin to fall and no longer be a threat, but it could take up to 1/2sec for the officer to react to what he sees. Thats why some may get in 2 more shots and punches before they recognize someone is no longer a threat or has given up.
here is a link for further on use of force. Ill try and get a leo link after I've had sleep. Its well past my bedtime.
http://www.aemma.org/misc/use_of_force.htm
@ Tony: thx for taking the time to reply ! I'll have a look at that link as well ... But interesting to see how rules can differ, to a certain degree, for the same type of situation. Anyway, I'm with you with anything up to use of deadly force.
DeleteNow i realize that there are variations between the amount of deadly an police officer would be able to apply with his handgun and the deadly force that could be applied with a modern assault rifle. But one thing I noticed in all the years i've worked with colleagues from the US, is that it's not so much the rules of engagement that are different, but the fire discipline, which is not to say there's indiscriminate firing, but in general more rounds are being fired when facing the exact same situation. Maybe it's because you guys got more rounds to spare, I'm not sure ;-)
But as a rule of thumb (not sure this helps in LE), you don't get the most efficient result and the best accuracy, obviously, by firing more rounds. Long bursts are more about 'suppressive fire' than hitting anyone, with short bursts it's the first round that hits the target most accurately in 90 % of cases and the classic double tap (or other techniques of repeated single shots), wether for handguns or shoulder weapons, has usually the highest chance of neutralizing the threat, even at close range.
Now i'm with Sol on the topic of being against militarization of police work and police tactics. One of the only upsides i could potentially see in such a development is the use of firing techniques that have been developed or improved by armed forces in order to increase accuracy, while reducing risks of "colateral damage' (especially when shooting in the middle of a crowd, which unfortunately is a scenario we have to prepare for in my country). Another technique that could help preventing possible controversies like the recent one, is 'target focused shooting' or instinctive shooting, which takes into consideration the fact that especially in LE about 80-90% of the shots fired are directed at a target/threat less than 8 yards away. I'm definitely not advocating for restraining rules of engagement for police officers when confronted with a deadly threat, but i'm very much in favour of the most efficient response being used. And based on that rationale, I think PDs all over the US could rely more on know-how and experience of certain military units, if the budgets allow for the necessary training. But that's just from a purely technical point of view, I have no idea about legal and other implications this might have.
And then of course, comes the question of the ammunition type that is best being used, but i'm not gonna get into that, might ignite another heated debate LOL
Deletefunny. i don't have any complaint about the number of shots fired. and its also strange i guess that its the one part of his interview that i find plausible. i'm paraphrasing but he says that the guy seemed like he was hulking up to run through the bullets....add that description with the confusion on distance and that part of the interview rings true. if i'm remembering correctly he thought it was between 30 and 40 feet when the actual measurement was around 150.
Deletenumber of shots fired is never an issue in my mind. in that case it turns into clearly seeing your target and knowing where the bullets will go if they over penetrate or you miss thats at issue.
Sorry, i hadn't read or heard the interview and i have to admit didnt know either about the exact circumstances of the shooting. Are you saying he shot him at a distance of 150 feet then ?
Deletei hear you about not missing or over-penetrating the target, but imagine you're in the middle of a busy street in Tel Aviv, or in a bus, and there's a guy who threatens to shoot at anything, or carries a knife or an axe trying to bludgeon people, like the other day in Jerusalem. You definitely gonna want to take him out as quickly as possible. so number of rounds can matter ... and things could have been worse in ferguson too, if an 'innocent bystander' or, worse, a kid had been hit by a stray bullet.
From a purely PR point of view, it also makes us look better if we take someone out with one-two shots, rather than having the guy riddle with bullet holes, as this can start a shitload of trouble on a totally different levels. So from this point of view, the number of bullets makes a difference as well ... as i'm pretty sure it has in Ferguson as well, regardless of wether it was a justified shoot or not. Sometimes, as regrettable as is sounds, perception is just as important as the facts themselves. If you can address that, to a certain degree, why not, knowing that safety goes first of course.
Sort of reminds me of the terrorist incident during the Munich Olympics. When one of the anti-terrorist team was asked why he shot one of them 17 times, his reply was "Because that was all I had left in my gun." :) Twitch reaction to a sudden aggressive hostile is to unload everything, so not surprised about the overkill.
DeleteSol I may have an explanation for the 30 to 35ft. If I remember he said he did give chase so he may have been closer to Brown than his vehicle. He also said when Brown started running he retreated at some point. The Physical evidence showed 20ft of blood overlap from where he was shot going back at Wilson and the final shot may have been 8 to 10ft away by his testimony.
Delete@Hecat In the US the biggest problem is hitting the target accurately under stress. Now I don't know the nation wide stats, but my department is at 85%+ hit rate when involved in a shooting. That still doesn't mean they are good shots, but they hit their target and no one else. The biggest problem in law enforcement is training. We really don't have much of it. Scenario based training can make us better, but this costs a ton of money for sim rounds and shear manpower. The cost can be lessened by using Airsoft guns, but you lose some of the stress element when you are not using something that gives you pain as a consequence for messing up. Just in the past year I've been through a few different ones and looking to go through 2 more this year. The difference it has made is unbelievable. Even though I regularly score 95 or better on paper the first scenario I never made a good shot on my target. I hit him, but nothing that would have stopped him. By the last training I could walk in and give headshots under high stress with no problem, but I work for a large department in an area with many large departments so the free training the feds put on is always around us which just isn't so for the majority of officers out there.
We do have trainings where we use military style tactics, but they are very rudimentary. We learn how to move across open spaces and such while providing cover for one another and standard patrol formations when having to look for an active shooter in a larger group in urban or rural spaces. This is very basic and the training is not widely utilized yet. I have been to it and brought the concepts back to the guys I regularly work with, but only 2 others cared to learn the concepts. It is also hard to get a city to want to pay for training that a vast majority of their officers will never use.
There is a double edge sword to training. In reading On Combat there was an agency that adopted the newer training styles for shooting and in 1 year they had a huge swing in officer involved shootings with bad guy deaths. The number of shootings was the same as previous years, but their hit rate went from 30% to 80% or better if I remember correctly so the number of bad guys that actually died in a shoot out with police shot through the roof so there were calls they were training the police to kill everyone.
Hadn't heard that quote from munich Olympic massacre, maybe that explains why they totally botched the hostage rescue ... Anyway wasn't a real hostage rescue unit just regular officers who had been handed sniper guns a few hours earlier ... But would be interested to know where the quote is from ! What it does show and that's where it relates to Tony's post as well is that firing under stress is a different thing from practicing on a firing range .. And when your target is moving towards you armed, well then you definitely gonna feel that adrenaline pumping. Reality close training seems a good way to prepare for this but as you mentioned tony, costs could be skyrocketing and smaller departments would certainly not be able to afford this. Especially when the likelihood of ever applying this training is very low.
DeleteIronic though that departments which improved their 'efficient hit' rate, they got critisized too for shooting too accurately ... Again
It's perceptions that shape people's views of an issue. strange world indeed ... damned if you do and damned if you don't !
@Hecate: The local (usually a state or county official, depending on the state) prosecutor presents the facts to the grand jury. Advocacy for the state/victim is performed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is usually an elected official, so is presumably answerable to the electorate at a later date. This design insulates the proceeding from current/popular political whims, or even mob rule. Qualified / expert testimony is often presented to the grand jury. There is no cross-examination of witnesses - that function is performed at trial level.
DeleteBrown committed strong arm, assault and battery robbery prior to being shot dead.
ReplyDeleteIn Missouri strong arm robbery is a second degree class B felony.
Under stand your ground laws, that little shopkeeper could have shot Brown dead if he had a gun during the assault and battery robbery.
Brown was originally stopped by Wilson for misdemeanor jaywalking, an act which give Wilson the legal right to stop, ticket perhaps frisk Brown. Jaywalking gave Wilson probable cause to stop and question Brown.
Brown refusing to get out of the road was resisting a policeman's orders to stop committing a misdemeanor offense.
Even had Wilson not at that moment discovered the strong arm robbery (felony) he could have arrested Brown for his refusal to stop committing that jaywalking offense.
Once he stopped Brown, and Brown slammed his door on the officer Brown committed while resisting arrest another first class felony against a police officer attempting an arrest.
That is two felonies and one first class misdemeanor at this point.
Then When Brown again slammed Wilson and assaulted and battered him he committed his third felony, while attempting to disarm and knock out Wilson he committed another felony that is four.
When Brown fled the car after being shot while attempting to turn Wilson's pistol against him he was fleeing the scene of a crime consisting in four felony assault and battery events.
Officer Wilson was at that point in hot pursuit of a violent felon resisting arrest and becoming a danger to everyone in the public as well as the Policeman. During hot pursuit a Policeman can cross state, county, city borders and do what ever is necessary to stop and arrest the fleeing felon.
When Brown stopped and then rushed Wilson he was committing assault another felony and while defending his life and protecting the public safety Wilson shot him in the arms until Brown was so close he had to deliver a killing shot to save himself.
So, the score is, five felonies and two misdemeanor offenses.
four assault and battery events and one assault, two resisting arrests robbery and jaywalking.
Had Brown been White, Latino, Asian or Native American the end results would have been the same.
Had Brown not been shot and killed he would at minimum done four to fifteen years for assault and battery strong arm robbery, at maximum fifty years in prison.
No one outside of Brown and Wilson knows what actually happened during the event in the police car, that a struggle ensued and shots, fist and blows flew and wounds were delivered by both parties and blood spatter proves this.
The forensics shows Wilson's version of events to be as true as they can be ascertained.
That Brown was already a felon by that moment shows he was the aggressor and the bad guy.
Brown's only witness was an accomplice in his strong arm robbery and the assault on Wilson making him by law responsible for Brown's death by being an accessory to the crimes.
DeleteThis makes his testimony suspect.
His and Brown's other friend was murdered during the riots because he was thought to have snitched on Brown and his friend.
If the Police story sounds flaky then the story of Mike Brown talking to workers just prior to being shot and after strong arm robbery about Jesus is equally flaky.
Sometimes the most flaky of stories are true, Wilson's account sounds true and forensics backs it up.
Hindsight says, Wilson should have called for back up, followed Brown down the road until back up arrived and with support from other policemen effected an arrest.
Brown should have endeavored to remain clean, straight and sober, paid for his cigars and obeyed the laws by walking on the sidewalk.
That neither of these men did such is why we are were we are today.
------------------------
Yes, ISIS/ISIL Al Q and every enemy of the US will attempt to make trouble and exploit this event.
It all boils down to being kind, polite, courteous and friendly while obeying the laws of the land and paying what you owe while being respectful to those around you.
Something no one in these events did.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, Didn't.
Good overview of events, Officer Wilson made some poor decisions and he may just be one of those people not cut out for this line of work but Brown's actions cannot be excused no matter how many Al Sharptons shout racism and how many rioters decide to cause hell in some small town.
Deleteand that's the point. i have never defended Brown. i have accused Wilson of a bad shooting. what i did say is that the whole issue has been poorly handled by local authorities and that Wilson's interview smells like bullshit.
Deletei should have known better but this has broken down along racial lines and there is no viewing it honestly anymore. if you make any statement at all that isn't totally behind Wilson then you're bashing cops. if you make any statement that doesn't see Wilson as a victim then you're a racist.
the sad truth is that bad shit happened, a guy died, another guy is probably going to have to look over his shoulder for a long time and the real issues that need to be addressed are being ignored.
what issues you say? how about improper seizure of assets? how about using law enforcement as a revenue generating source? how about questionable tactics by a district attorney? the list goes on. you want to reform law enforcement the quickest way is to get away from tickets, fines and seizures being a funding source. that way we get back to what it should be.
Yep, always difficult to try and speak with the voice of reason when you're in the middle of an "us" vs "them" type of argument ... Welcome to the club, Sol ;-)
DeleteActually Sol, sometimes it may be due to the way you phrase things. An overly aggressive way of structuring your statement can make it look like you're being a partisan to one of the POVs when you don't really mean to. I'm sure it is completely accidental, after all, over the net, people can both lose and ascribe meaning that the original writer did not intend to, but it's something to KIV. Aggressive phrasing seems like an attack.
Delete