Hotscot

No. I do not mean that.

It behooves people to accurately record events for historical purposes when appropriate.

Hotscot

Pops over for a look.

Backs away, slowly....

johnnybrown532

Of course not but Michael Brown was unarmed that crowd sure as hell wasn't any shootings last night by police probably would have been treated the same way by the grand jury rightly or wrongly and may have looked more justifiable.

amideislas

I still contend that if it weren't an expectation that every kid could have a loaded glock in his pocket, this shit just wouldn't happen.

The elephant in the room is guns, not racism - again not remotely suggesting racism doesn't exist, but c'mon, it's the guns that are killing the kids. Yet, here we are .. it's all about racism - again, completely dismissing the gun issue - again.

johnnybrown532

What did you mean then? I don't live in America. I live in England and am glad to after seeing that shit. I am glad I don't think is a copper gonna shoot me when he pulls me over.

Isn't that was the news cameras are for. People recording that shit last were just sickos rubbernecking but not having the guts to get into it themselves. They are gonna show it to their mates they ain't doing it for no place in history.

SultanOfSwing

Actually, this case is unique, in that it (as far as I can tell) didn't have anything to do with race or guns (apart from the cop's gun, of course). Brown was shot for attacking the police officer by hitting him, not for reaching for a gun, or being suspected of carrying one.

Hotscot

Shall we try a second time?

It behooves people to accurately record events for historical purposes when appropriate.

sir_eccles

Missing quite a few "accused" and "it is alleged" it seems. As there was no trial for Brown and will not be a trial for the cop the actual facts of what happened will never come to light and we will be left with rumor and innuendo each side believing only their own story.

johnnybrown532

No it's racism. Racism is the one thing you can' talk about in america. Not really you can't. A lot of people are racist in america but will not admit it cannot admit it. and of course no criticism must be made of black civil right leaders like Jesse Jackson who refuse to condemn black youth killing black by the thousand. Nor any suggestion that black violence causes whites to be racist when they do not behave as violently and yet the violence impacts their lives. That's the elephant in the room.

markonline1

I'm pretty troubled by this. It does worry me a little that an organization set up to protect the general public seems to spend an awful lot of time killing the general public. I saw a stat a few weeks back showing the number of civilians killed by US cops. It was something ridiculous like 30,000. I can't remember the time frame, but even if it's the last 100 years, that's a hell of a lot! I deal with the local sheriffs office quite a lot in my job, and some ofte deputies are great guys. Calm, sensible, understanding. Some of them are down right twats! That said, I did have a dislike for the police (still do with traffic cops). That changed when my ex joined up and I saw what they have to deal with on a daily basis. They really are dealing with the dregs of society. Give those dregs firearms like over here, and it becomes a nasty job. And dealing with abuse day in day out makes you start almost dehumanizing people (I know, it happened to me in a previous job). If it's between the cop and a crook, I definitely want to see the crook dead, but I just wonder if sometimes, other means could be used.... More use of stun guns, non lethal shots if possible.

Hotscot

I've wondered about that but it seems if it's considered a life or death situation then they use max force.

SultanOfSwing

I'm only stating an opinion, not writing in an official capacity. I'm taking the descriptors as implicit. There really isn't anything else to read into it.

It's hard to be accurate with a pistol, even at short range. Non-lethal shots are not reliable, especially in a spur-of-the-moment situation. Not to beat about the bush, but usually police open fire because they believe there is imminent danger to the public or themselves. Going for a leg or a shoulder is a noble thought, but it is likely that they will miss and amplify the existing danger, so they go for big targets, like the chest which often results in fatality.

On the other hand, in many cases, you are right, there is no reason why a taser couldn't be used. It certainly could have been in this case. In this case, the officer could also have hit back or tried to subdue Brown with non-lethal force. As I said earlier though, we're not police officers (well, some of us are, but that's beside the point); we don't know the training they undergo. Whether we like it or not, Officer Wilson was acting within the law.

Michael

I thought you were a libertarian and libertarians believe in the freedom to own guns without restrictions.

America has always been a culture of owning guns and in the foreseeable future, that won't change. In many rural area, 12 year olds are required to take gun safety courses with real guns and live ammunition.

If tomorrow a law was passed similar to the UK, 90% of Americans would be in jail and unless there was some sort of totalitarian state to take away the guns, Americans aren't going to give them up. Laws can be passed on the fringes like California's tough gun laws (some of the toughest in the US) that doesn't allow assault rifle sales and there is a 10 days waiting period for all guns sales including private sales and sales at gun shows but just about anyone in California can buy a gun.

amideislas

There seem to be a few thousand people in the streets who have no problem talking about it, not to mention all over the media and of naturally, the pundits comparing it to the Detroit riots in the 60's.

But if the cop shot the kid because he was black, then he can (rather convincingly) argue it to be a tactical misjudgement of the use of lethal force because we all know that kids carry loaded weapons these days. Easy to mistake.

However, even if the kid's skin colour had nothing to do with it, then he can (rather convincingly) argue it to be a tactical misjudgement of the use of lethal force because we all know that kids carry loaded weapons these days. Easy to mistake.

Without the reasonable presumption that any 12 year old could be packing a 9mm, then regardless of whether the cop was racist or not, he'd have a much more difficult time arguing erroneous use of lethal force, and sole racial motivation is a lot more plausible. But again, if 12 year olds didn't carry guns, the entire event would be far less likely to happen in the first place.

I'm not sticking up for the cop, by the way, I'm only illustrating that because of rampant gun culture, cops are a lot more likely to use lethal force, and kids are more likely to die. Racist or not.

Hotscot

And you'd think that'd be bleedin' obvious too.

I guess the issue is if the cost is worth it, to maintain that culture.

I personally don't think it is.

I think it should be very, very, difficult to obtain a gun.

Not as easy peasy as it currently is.