scrubbedexpat091

I am not sure, I haven't seen any breakdown of the decision, but maybe it hasn't been released, or I missed it as I was travelling yesterday and only got bits and pieces of the press conference and now the riots have overshadowed the grand jury decision and the news isn't reporting much today of anything except the riots.

paul32x

I seem to recall in the press conference last night, the prosecutor outlining the decision was asked the breakdown and he said the rules for a grand jury don't allow him to publish that.

Steerpike

I've been following this one for some time and I must say, I'm shocked by the outcome.

A decision to indict would not be a 'guilty' decision, just a decision to pursue further. To say there isn't enough evidence to even try seems bogus to me. But then, there is still a Federal investigation going on ... not sure how that relates to this Grand Jury decision ... very confusing to me.

The question that doesn't seem to be raised is - 'why deadly force'? Surely, if cop felt threatened, cop could have shot Brown in the foot/leg/thigh/arm, not body/head. These cops are supposedly trained to disarm/debilitate an aggressor. Deadly force should be the course of last resort, not first.

Brown, for his part, is no boy scout - he's an obvious petty criminal with a history of violence (he just robbed a convenience store moments earlier, that doesn't seem to be in dispute). But as someone said on TV today ... this is not a popularity contest; we aren't trying to decide if Brown is a 'nice guy' or not; being a 'bad kid' doesn't justify being shot to death for no good reason.

I think - and hope, to some extent - this one may drag out and uncover the pattern of incompetence and brutality that these cops are demonstrating.

scrubbedexpat099

This thread answers all the points you made.

I see no case to answer. Any Prosecution would be totally political.

Which is not to say the administration would not if they thought they could get away with it.

Steerpike

I just read the entire thread and I don't agree. There are some very constructive and interesting posts, though. I guess the answer is, police in the US are allowed to use deadly force with great latitude and no matter how unreasonable his actions were, he's not going to be found legally at fault.

I appreciate your insight into this. Do you have a link to the specific parts above? I'm sure I can find the entire text, but I imagine that is a pretty overwhelming body of work.

I have to agree with this, and I think it is key to understanding what is going on now in the streets.

Of course, taking on a cop is foolhardy. What does it tell you about the state of mind of the 'black youth' in towns such as Ferguson that they will (allegedly) approach an armed police officer? Just how desperate do you have to be, how angry, to risk being shot? They KNOW they won't get listened to; they KNOW the 'system' will support the cop no matter what, so if he was willing to approach the cop, despite all that, he had a level of anger (or desperation) that I don't think we can appreciate.

But what if 'authority' is oppressive? At what point does it become 'justified', if not even 'necessary', to fight back? I don't know anything about Ferguson, but I saw documentaries about Oakland (CA) in the 60s (covering the birth of the Black Panther movement), and there was clearly a pattern of police brutality, and police neglect. If you grow up in a community where the police are seen as oppressors and are blatantly unfair, how can you, and why should you, 'respect' them?

That, to me, is the essence of this situation.

scrubbedexpat099

Ferguson has only recently become a predominantly black community. People moved to it from the hood.

Obviously we will never know but he comes across as a bully used to getting his way due to his size. Looking at his mother and step father it would be reasonable to suppose that parental guidance was limited.

Mrs Danvers

I'm not shocked. Also in Wilsons testimony he said he didn't have a taser as he chooses not to carry one as they are bulky. Make of that what you will.

People are marching all over the nation. I expect that it will fizzle out soon. I don't think they are marching for Brown necessarily but many may have had their own experiences of police oppression/brutality. Many police officers simply don't have the right interpersonal skills and appear to be trained to see kids or little old ladies as well as criminals as "suspects" and not citizens. There does need to be a change in policing in the USA. Accountability would be nice.

penguinbar

There was a protest march a few blocks from where I work in NYC last night. An older white man was pulled from a car and beaten. There were sirens and helicopters and many major roads, bridges and tunnels were closed off. I closed the bar early and headed home. I have to admit it was unnerving.

AlphaTangoMike

There's been a few comments in this thread about shooting to disarm/disable someone. That's mostly a hollywood concept. You only ever point a gun at something that you wish to destroy. When you shoot someone, you shoot with the conscious intent to kill, not to wound. Saying that, even a shot to the leg can result in death. (Hitting a femoral artery will most likely result in a fairly quick death).

Law enforcement shoot at the center mass for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a bigger target and while under pressure (with a rush of adrenalin and having to react quickly), it's easier to hit (in theory). Secondly, there's more likelihood of missing the target or even hitting innocent bystanders if trying to shoot at the flailing arms and legs of a running suspect. Thirdly, most of the critical organs are in the center mass (heart, lungs, spine) and the suspect is more likely to stop if one of these is hit. An armed suspect may still be able to return fire if only wounded.

On many occasions, one shot to the body is not enough to stop a determined assailant. In 2012, "NYPD Sgt. Alexander Mesa fired 39 shots, and Officer Joseph Robinson got off 45 rounds. Murray was hit 14 times, and refused to drop his weapon".
Two NYPD Cops Fire 84 Rounds at Murder Suspect - News - POLICE Magazine

Stopping a violent/armed suspect as quickly as possible is the primary goal, once the decision to use deadly force has been made. Unfortunately, the decision to use such force is often made under pressure, where the officer has little time to properly analyze the situation and then react accordingly. This results in the officer 'fearing for their life' and blindly firing in a panic.

The unfortunate reality is that many police officers are not adequately trained nor equipped to handle situations like this.

You can see this type of response in most NYPD officer-involved shootings. In the past few years in NYC, several bystanders have been shot (by the NYPD), despite them being nowhere near the intended target area. In the 2012 Empire State building shooting, 9 civilians were wounded by the NYPD.

This speaks volumes of their training and discipline (or rather the lack of it). I.e. identifying your target, identifying the civilians / potential collateral damage around it. Then taking careful, well-aimed shots at said target. In theory, that works well, but when under fire or other stress, it seems as if all training goes out the window, with officers emptying their magazines in the general direction of the suspect.

I'm not trying to criticize law enforcement in this post, they have a tough job that I certainly would not want to do. At the same time, the general population should be aware of the fact that the average police officer is not a marksman, nor do they have significant combat training and will probably react in a similar manner to the rest of us when under fire.

A link for those interested in reading more about NYPD incidents and reasons contributing to poor accuracy (including the highly debated 12 pound trigger): NYPD: A Dangerous Philosophy - Bearing Arms

Hotscot

And correct.

johnnybrown532

But the decision would have to unanimous like in jury trials?

scrubbedexpat099

I know someone involved in instructing the local Sherrif department and have heard similar tales about their proficiency.

12lb pull does not help! Seem to remember CA? wanted to put in similar regulations.

johnnybrown532

They have to shoot to kill or seriously injure in all those circumstances they are trained to do so aren't they. But I don't accept that nypd is racist soley against the blacks way the sharpdon or jackson do. The nypd would shoot a white man down like a dog the same as a black man. I like that phrase like a dog that's an all american phrase. And if you an englishman went on the run after doing something wrong. They would give your english friends a dogs life trying to find you. They condescend to all because Kelly and now Bratton protect them no matter why they do and they know it.

AlphaTangoMike

How do you manage to make every post about race? Do you even read the drivel that you post?

Pulaski

In support of this, and to counter Steerpike's Hollywood view of shooting people, Wilson's own testimony was that he had already fired several shots at Brown, and believed he had hit him at least once (based on an observed flinch by Brown), but that didn't stop Brown advancing on Wilson. That circumstance on its own (never mind the other supporting factors) suggests to me that the GJ decision was not only reasonable, but the entirely correct outcome.