His stealing is relevant. This is Nothing but a Political Correctness diatribe for 15 minutes.


Autopsy report shows 6 shots hit the giant 300# thug: 3 in his right arm, one in upper right chest, one in right neck one in right eye and one on top of the head and ALL 6 shots hit in the frontal plane, I.E. none, not a single one in the back,


Liberalism is a nasty disease that rots the brain !

@bobknight33 - "giant 300lb thug" is your way of painting him using language and insinuation into a monster, and i think that if i had separately referred to him as a "cuddly gentle giant" you'd probably launch into a litany about liberal propaganda.

Sadly, i don't live there, don't know him, have never had any experience at the kind of life that people live in those kinds of places, so i honestly couldn't say whether the backlash is justified, nor what type of person he is. What part of Ferguson do you live in and how long have you known the guy? If you base all of that on the autopsy report, could i ask how many autopsy reports you've read through in your line of work and how you figure out his personality from it?

I'd just love to know how you've found him guilty before there's been any kind of independent investigation, cos i'm pretty sure they'd need all the evidence and witnesses and access to crime scene details - not to mention years of experience - before they made their mind up, you might be able to save them time.

Also, I'd like to see this video, but can't find anywhere to watch it from UK it seems.

HOW is it relevant? What do you know that the Ferguson police chief doesn't?

The Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown didn't stop him because he was suspected in a convenience-store robbery, but because he was "walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic," the city's police chief said Friday.
Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson -- hours after documents came out labeling the 18-year-old Brown as the "primary suspect" in the store theft -- told reporters the "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."

@bobknight33

At least have the courage to own it Bob... don't be a bigot AND a coward!... no one here is going to misinterpret your thinly veiled euphemism for anything other than the blatant bigotry you all to frequently display... just be brave enough to actually own it!...

Truly disgusting....

I think what happened is eminently explainable. Guy does a shoplifting by force, walks down middle of street, cop sees him, gets him into his car where the suspect tries to take his gun...cop shoots at thug, misses, suspect escapes, cop takes chase, thug turns around and charges cop...cop decides he can't fight this behemoth so, in fear of his life, shoots. Six shots take about 2 seconds, rounds are still flying while the target starts to fall, causing rounds to strike his head.

Of course, I only have 30 yrs of law enforcement experience, and no years of criminal life experience from which to speak.

Are you that stupid or just trying to impress you leftest sift friends?

The kid knew he just robbed the store. That why its relevant. His reaction to the cop would had been different if he did not just rob the store..

Late this afternoon the Cop that shot the kid indicated that he just herd on the radio that there was an robbery but he did not have a clue that it was this 300lb thug that has been martyred by the press as the gentle giant.

I assumed during those 30 years you took the Pure-Speculation-Based-On-Tabloid-Evidence-Without-Any-Involvement-In-The-Case course?

Law enforcement are MEANT to be suspicious, that's why all juries aren't made up of old policemen. That'd be stupid, because they'd all be biased towards the police and they'd all be extremely suspicious of everything; rightly so, in the way in which they'd been trained.

Your qualifier is tantamount to saying "I'm extremely biased; here's my guess at what happened."

Have to agree with John Oliver here, the curfew is fucking ridiculous. It is the very definition of a bullshit law that should be resisted with civil disobedience.

Translation: It's just a black kid, why is everyone so upset?

Murica!
^vote for @6:25.

Thug is the new code word for the n word.

They know they'll get in trouble if the actually say what they really want to say.

It used to be "urban" now it's thug

The apparent unnecessary death of an individual, regardless of whether he was innocent or had committed a crime at some point prior is obviously wrong. The story however, should be about the larger issue:

1) Lack of police trust, presumption of culpability rather than belief that it was an accident.

2) Racially non-representative nature of the police force in the city relative to the populace that it is tasked with protecting.

3) Tone deafness of the city leadership in response to what is a public outcry, instead focussing on the criminal riot element that choose to take advantage of it.

4) Overt militarisation of the police force and overt use of military hardware in the face of largely peaceful protests.

Like every other case like this, the most likely outcome is the individual story will get disputed but the larger issues will be ignored. In fact, if anything, the riot will give credibility to the camp that wants to militarise the police.

I can't quite see the case for why this death is so outrageous. He's a big guy who it appears was physically assaulting an armed police officer. That is never going to end in a discussion and mutual agreement.

Seems like the community overreacted because colours, then the cops massively overreacted in return and demonstrated they have far too large a budget for soldier toys.

That explains just about everything actually...

no matter how you spin it, the death was unnecessary. Again, this WOULD have been a great time to use a taser.

They keep using the wrong weapons at the wrong time.

Even if he was belligerent. He simply did not have to die. Cops, and wannabe cops, seem to have a real problem with appropriate levels of force.

I think the real criminals are the press though, they are going to stoke this fire for all they can. There was absolutely no reason for them to publish that autopsy diagram showing where the bullet impacts were. No matter what happens, they're going present the case as being completely 50/50 and could go either way.

Wrong again. I'm simply explaining what could have happened. Only the actual evidence will produce a verdict, such as in the Trayvon Martin case, where everything that Zimmerman said was verified by the facts, and everything the media presented was false, based on myth-making.

Another example of 'I'm not a cop but I know what/how/why cops do things totally bass-ackwards from my utopian view'.

How do you know a person is unarmed? Until you know for a fact, why would choose a taser over a gun? Do you know how fast someone can charge 20 feet? Do you know the effect clothing has on a taser, or drugs in the body? Are you willing to risk your life on your lack of knowledge?

Wrong again, brainiac. Thug is a word that describes living the 'thug life', you know...disregard for tradition, convention, laws, social responsibility.

A thug is a criminal, someone who commits a shoplifting by force, a felony in most jurisdictions.

naturally, you being an anarchist... the cops are always wrong.

Still angry about that small sample size eh? still haven't looked up anecdotal either I see.

That's a very poor definition of thug, as that actually describes life in general.

traditions are ALWAYS challenged and eventually put down, convention is ALWAYS challenged and put down, Laws are always challenged and changed. Social responsibility is an ever changing term

30 years as a cop means nothing, it's just a pathetic appeal to authority fallacy, and you just being insecure...again, about a great many things, which prompts you to play your tired Internet Tough Guy routine. The 90s called, they want their early internet "debate" tactics back.

as a former cop (gee, wonder why you aren't anymore) you should know that you are answerable to the taxpayers...That means I'm your boss dipshit. not the other way around, your former coworkers would do well to remember that.

you push us? we push back.

funny, I don't see the thug term being applied to any white criminals. just the black ones.

Anarchist? are you deaf blind and dumb? (oops, my bad, of course you are)

choggie and blankfist are/were the resident anarchists. Both were banned and my comment history shows me arguing with them constantly. You don't like to read though do you..

You just aren't very good at this are you.

How do you know his death was unnecessary? I hope you posted this before you learned that the kid had a tussle with the cop, went for his gun and it was discharged during this event.

After that he ran away then charged " Bum Rushed" the cop. and received 6 pills, 4 in the arm and 2 in he head.

The right weapon was used.

The issue is not that a white cop shot a black. It is the fact that a majority of young black men are swept up by the streets. Which leads to disproportional black arrest, crimes, and general mayhem. We are all a product of our choices. He chose to be a thug.

And this young sweet collage bound gentle giant that the media hypes up day an night does not help.

He is a young large thug with criminal history as seen by his arrest record:

Michael Brown arrest sheet
Description: Burglary – 1st Degree { Felony B RSMo: 569.160 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Description: Assault 1st Degree – Serious Physical Injury { Felony A RSMo: 565.050 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

In what way was i wrong? I said that you made a bias speculation, and you reply with "Wrong again! I actually made a speculation." - Well, that confirms what i said, sans the word bias, obviously because from your point of view you aren't biased. But your ...colourful language betrays you.

The stand-your-ground nonsense doesn't fly in what i consider (that's MY bias, my opinion) more civilised areas. Zimmerman wanted a fight, chased and got the fight he wanted, got out of his depth and killed a man all in the name of self defence. That is absolutely insane to me, but i respect any people's right to self determination; it's why i don't live somewhere that has laws which allow someone to pursue and kill without repercussions. I think you'll find that the law is contentious at best, and is only seen as a shining beacon of justice by racists. Those of us with less bias on those particular matters see it as a tragedy that could have been avoided if a certain person hadn't willingly pursued someone out of a desperate desire to be some kind of rentacop.

Zimmerman was doing a service to his community by keeping a watch on it, due to all the burglaries that had been committed in that area. Martin assaulted Zimmerman and had to be shot to keep from at least, a felonious assault on GZ. In your world, only GZ has to restrain himself, not TM.

You make an assumption based on your bias against cops. I made my speculation based on what I've heard of the case and 30 yrs on the job. That is why you are wrong.

You are just a trolling punk, so why waste my time?

Also, I am still a cop, so...wrong again.

Yet you keep responding. I must be pushing your buttons again ☺

If a guy like me on the Internet can make you angry so easily and make you lose your cool, I'm going go ahead and say you're not a cop, or a very bad one, or just a fucking desk jockey. In either case, the instant you try to bring your rl into an Internet argument, you've lost because you can't stand on your arguments merits and you try (and fail) to make appeals to your "authority"

Hell if you are a cop, you've threatened on sift lounge to smash my face in... So can I have your name and badge number so I can make some phone calls?

Didn't think so. So not only are you a violent cop, you're a coward

It's interesting that you called me a punk instead of a thug. Obviously you think I'm white then.

That's exactly what could make him a cop in the US. Getting disrespected, getting pissed off and then threatening violence.

If he is a cop, it shows that they don't really look for the best and brightest

That he had just recently committed a robbery is relevant because it might have given him a reason to react the way he does in the police version of events.

Just robbed a store, and a cop comes by? Maybe he reacts more aggressively than usual, because he thinks that's why the cop is talking to him. And then a bunch of bad things happen and he gets shot.

the situation in st louis did not just pop up out of thin air overnight.the tensions between the poor community (mostly black) and the police has been a festering pressure cooker for almost 15 years.

a particularly venal chapter in the st louis police archives is the RNC of 2008,for anybody to absorb some context on the militarization of a police force.

the tinder has been accumulating just waiting for the match.
mike brown WAS that match.
this is not new nor original.
it has happened before.

and as @lantern53 has pointed out:it is the chain of command that sets the tone of how that police force performs their duties.so if those in charge are authoritarian douche nozzles,that attitude tends to trickle down to the everyday cop on the street.

cops by their very nature are authoritarian due to their vocational choice.they respect the chain of command and the authority it represents.to follow orders is to be a "good" cop.

so i do not understand the ridicule that lantern is receiving.he is offering his perspective AS an actual police officer.i am not suggesting that he is right NOR that his opinion somehow exonerates the st louis cop JUST because he is a cop but rather we should listen to someone who actual IS a cop.

there is absolutely ZERO evidence that lantern is a bad cop.we simply do not know how well,or poorly,lantern is at his job.

there IS evidence,however,that lantern tends be a tad racist,authoritarian and contradictory.lantern may be a poor debater but that does not make him a bad cop.

though his defense of zimmerman does reveal an extremely poor judge of character.(seriously lantern?that dude is a full fledged cunt).

but i get it @VoodooV,
lantern is easy pickings.
a right wing authoritarian conservative commenting on a mostly secular left site?
its like shooting fish in a barrel.

sometimes lantern brings it on himself...i know.
his poor debating skills coupled with an almost embarrassing understanding of history and government makes him catnip to someone like you.

its
just
so
easy

i disagree with lantern,pretty much always and i agree that sometimes his biased rhetoric should be taken to task,if only to clear up the bullshit.

but you take it to whole new levels voodoo.
you follow him from thread to thread and chastise and belittle him and THEN act all hurt and shocked when he lashes out at you!

seriously?thats like poking a grizzly bear in the face and then crying when it rips half your face off.

you use the exact same tactics choggie used,but at least he was entertaining.

you are just a bully.
a hypocritical,sanctimonious bully.hiding behind the skirts of others who may find lanterns comments distasteful (which they certainly can be).this is a cowards path and just like all bullies,you rely on the silence of others to continue your persecution of someone who does not have the support of an entire site.

i find your lack of humanity disturbing.
and i will not be silent.
your actions do not deserve respect but rather ridicule.

@lantern53

Having been an officer for a long time, long enough to really have seen the entire process of the "militarization" of the police force from its inception to its current state. I'd really like to know your opinion of it. Can you honestly say you feel its appropriate, even needed or justified? The very rare opportunities I've had in the past to ask police officers this question, i find they are very reluctant to give honest and straight answers. Paraphrasing, they tend to fall back on the, "we'd rather have it and not need it" line of thinking. If you do support it, do you truly feel you or the officer utilizing it have received appropriate training?

I remember driving by our local police station (small town Texas) on the way to school and seeing BOTH the giant armored vehicles parked prominently in front with the bold SWAT on the side. Its always been extremely hard for me to accept them or the fact that we as a town of 30k needed a SWAT team to begin with.

Another example of 'I'm a cop, so let me tell you how the world works (from my misguided, self serving, myopic viewpoint) because only cops know...'
From your statement, one could reasonably ask 'why do cops have tasers at all then? You seem to say there's no time it would be reasonable to use one instead of a gun, because you don't know if your suspect is armed, an Olympic sprinter, an MMA fighter, on PCP, or any other made up excuse you might think of for shooting him out of your fear (of what exactly? It's unclear) instead of for a legitimate reason.
Your fear is NOT a reason to shoot citizens. It's amazing that someone needs to tell that to a 30 year officer, just amazingly sad. If you are so fearful of anyone not ensconced in blue, you certainly should not have been an officer. We need better psych screening, and braver officers.

Where are you still a cop, please? I want to know where I need to avoid.

Freedom of speech is not freedom of criticism. If you can't take the heat or make shitty comments prepare to reap the whirlwind. I'm not the one that has expressed anger in terms of physical violence. So I hope you remember that as you read back your self righteous speech to yourself as you pat yourself on the back comparing myself and Lantern.

Ridicule is the norm for changing social behavior. We ridicule anyone who thinks women shouldn't be able to vote, we ridicule anyone who still thinks the world is flat, we ridicule anyone who still thinks the sound barrier is unbreakable.

This is how the world works. Get used to it Enoch. Lantern and Bob are racist rednecks who have a long history of expressing shitty backwards behavior. They've been a hair's breadth away from being banned numerous times. Be glad that ridicule is all they get.

Lantern and Bob are big boys they can hack it, or they can leave. They don't need you running in like an overprotective mommy protecting them from a skinned knee.

The police are also cracking down on journalists too.

@VoodooV

your comment is the definition of circular logic.
ignoring the meat of my commentary to actually repeat what i said,and for what?

i was pointing out your lack of humanity.
i was pointing out that you use the very same tactics of former sifters that got banned because of their:harrassing,belittling and personally derogatory commentary directed at other sifters.

i watched you cry like a little girl and call dag out on multiple occasions when it was done to you.yet you feel it totally acceptable to do it to others you disagree with.

hypocrisy in action and you are totally oblivious to that fact.

other sifters criticize bob and lantern,myself included,for the exact same reasons i posted in my commentary (which you just regurgitated) but i dont see them following them from thread to thread to ridicule,belittle and berate, but YOU do.

i was not defending lantern.i was pointing to your hypocrisy and lack of humanity.
i was pointing to the fact that when YOU were the object of ridicule and harassment,you cried for bannation.

so how come when YOU harass it is somehow some social justice issue?
that your golden-honeyed words are really for the betterment of mankind but when its done to you..well..they are just being big meanies to you.

irony seems to be lost on you.

since your commentary reveals 2 dimensional thinking i can only assume you will take my commentary as somehow being a hateful attack against you.i assure,this is not my intent,nor does my commentary indicate an abstract support of lantern.quite the opposite.lanterns commentary was never my point to begin with friend.

i have offered multiple times for you and i to clear any grudges or disagreements in private.which were always ignored.

so i have said it before,and i will say it again:love your commentary.hate your high horse.

hypocrisy makes my eyeballs itch.
and you ARE a hypocrite voodoo.

Sorry Enoch, but I don't consider your bodily functions to be reliable evidence of hypocrisy. Perhaps you should consult a doctor about your particular issues.

I'll make sure I consult you in the future about which sifts and when it is appropriate to confront Lantern and Bob. I wasn't aware that it was in the TOS of Videosift that I need your permission.

How exactly do you objectively measure humanity, or lack thereof? Maybe if your emotion filled rant had any actual meat as you say I might be better able to comply.

What's the matter? Choggie got himself banned, so you're picking Lantern and Bob as your new hard luck case in need of your personal "defense" even though you claim to not condone their posts too. If I remember right I called you out as a hypocrite when you did that with Choggie. Are you finally revenge posting? What took you so long to have the stones to say something?

@VoodooV

two dimensional thinking at its finest.

just because i point out that your commentary is tantamount to harassment does not automatically equal my condoning lantern or bobs oftentimes ridiculous commentary.

just because i am pointing out your hypocrisy does not mean i disagree with your actual comments.

if my fly was open or i had a huge booger hanging from my nose i hope you would pull me aside and point that out to me not stand from the bleachers,point and laugh.

your obsession with always being right has clouded your judgement in regards to what i am trying to point out to you.

is your ego so massive that the words of another should be so easily dismissed?each consecutive comment towards me is becoming more and more irrational and paranoid.

you mentioned calling me out on another thread.
yes you did.
which was a response to ME calling YOU out first.
and i smacked you down pretty handily.mainly due to the fact that you base your commentary towards me rife with presumption and conjecture.

which is exactly what you are doing here...again.

instead of hearing my words,you marginalize me in order to dismiss and ignore them.which is what all weak-minded people do in order to hold onto their own misconceptions.

bob does it.
lantern does it.
and so do you.

but never for a second deceive yourself into thinking i do not have the stones to say what needs to be said.your commentary reveals such an ignorance about who i am that i am literally laughing while i type this to you.

stop projecting voodoo.this persona you write about is not i,but rather you.

one last thing for your consideration (since we have totally hi-jacked this thread.sorry OP,please forgive).one of the main reasons i called you out was due to multiple private emails i received in regards to your current..and i quote one.."douchey attitude".

so the silence you hear is NOT due to agreement or consensus but rather many sifters fear confrontation.

i hold no such fear.

Are you just throwing out buzzwords to sound cool? You honestly aren't sounding very sane or rational at the moment dude. This sounds more like an emotional rant that's been boiling for months and you finally lost your cool. you keep spewing out words like hypocritical, no humanity, two dimensional yet no objective details.

just vague subjective terms and references to bodily functions.

I see you are taking up choggie's mantle of derailing sifts for your personal vendettas and nonsensical ravings, though.

@VoodooV

do i sound angry to you?
you are injecting an emotional component that quite frankly is non-existent.

"an emotional rant that has been boiling for months"

um..what?
and just how did you discern these supposed pent up emotions?
what evidence have i presented that my accusing you of being a hypocrite and bully is somehow derived from some emotional cauldron of hate?

what device did you use to come to these conclusions?
was it magic?
a crystal ball?
did you fall into a vat of nuclear waste and somehow gained super powers to peer into another humans intentions?

again...you are projecting.

do you think i hate or dislike you?
do you think i am angry with you?
i dislike the hypocrisy.i dislike the bullying but those are only small aspects of a greater whole.
which is why i was pointing those aspects out.in my opinion you are better than those aspects and maybe i presume too much to feel that you are better than that.

once again i am truly saddened by your lack of understanding.
you seem to feel this is some personal vendetta,based on absolutely zero evidence.you also seem to be under the impression that i am using words to appeal to other sifters.never even considering that my usage may possibly be accurate and succinct.

has it even occurred to you that me pointing out that you are behaving badly may actually come from a standpoint of friendship?or is that a foreign concept to you?you seem to be so certain of your assumptions,yet i see no basis for them.

if you think that just because i point to your poor attitude in regards to certain people somehow translates to me hating or disliking you,you are so incredibly and concretely wrong.

i am truly sorry you do not understand.
my apologies for using words and terms that confuse you.i was not trying to be "cool" or gain the admiration of those who may be following our discussion.

"you proceed from a false assumption.i have no ego to bruise.of course..the ship is yours"

Getting back to the subject at hand, the evidence appears to show that the police officer was in the right, while the decedent prompted his own demise.

meanwhile, the anarchists and other malcontents will continue to extoll the virtues of thugs like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and kiss the asses of parasites like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I recently got HBO and truly enjoy Oliver's perspective and topics on his show.


I like to read comments about videos, their topics, context, and others' perspective, not attacks on other sifters.

Unfortunately, it is like driving by a car crash.. i "had to look" and wish I had just driven by without more than a glance.

I'm mostly a silent lurker here, but will stick my neck out to to say this line of conversation (personal attacks) is off-putting.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

@enoch and @VoodooV, I wish I could put you two together in a room, in a quiet cocktail party setting and let you talk to each other face to face. I *know* you wouldn't be this mean to each other.

It's the same old cliche about the dehumanising effect of the anonymous web - try and remember that we're all human beings at the other end of the line.

What evidence? All the evidence released so far shows that Wilson chased Brown and shot him. Maybe on planet lantern that's being in the right, but most people aren't that keen on police summarily executing citizens.

and @enoch, I think you're being unreasonable. Lots of people (myself included) respond to bob and lanterns unsavoury posts. That's kinda the point of having a discussion board.

* quality

it's completely one sided dude. I haven't interacted with enoch in months, then out of nowhere, blammo. so again, this leads me to believe this his been boiling up in him for a while now. I find myself agreeing with Lantern that we should get back to the topic at hand instead of derailing.

If there was some sort of rivalry going on. No one informed me.

If you had used Bobtern in your example, it might be more accurate.

*grabs some popcorn

How could you not hear that ~20 witnesses corroborated the officer's testimony, that Brown charged the officer? Also, he wasn't shot in the back.

Don't you people follow the news?

None of the news reports I have read so far have witnesses that confirm that. I've read several conflicting reports as to whether his back was turned or not (including varying opinions from the medical examiners who performed the autopsy).

I had to laugh at the "news" of a friend of the officer that called into a radio station to corroborate the officer's story.

Oh well obviously if a friend backs up your story, it MUST be true!

Again, the real criminal here is the news. They just continue to report so little of substance. It's precisely why ChaosEngine is right that we know so little.

The problem is of course, the burden of proof. It will be the same as it was for Trayvon. The only other reliable witness is dead. so when it comes to charging the officer, it's going to be very difficult to prove.

But "not guilty" is not the same thing as innocent and no matter what happens, the officer's life is ruined anyway. He'll be a pariah in the public's eye

Which is why it's so much better to err on the side of not killing in the first place.

Seriously? Threatening someone over the internet is a sign of the kind of person who has a lot of front but no follow up. The kind of person that might try to intimidate someone but immediately relieve themselves in their trousers when they get called out on it. A weak person with a complex about inadequacy.

Having now watched the video, it fills me with dread to know that there are people like @lantern53 and @bobknight33 that would, with their head held high, say that they stand with the kind of police that i just saw say, on video, "bring it you animals" in any context to anyone or anything.

To be fair to lantern, he said "smash his face in" in reference to me in the lounge when I wasn't there. So it wasn't like it was a direct threat, so I apologize for embellishing a bit. but yeah. Lantern obviously forgot that the Lounge is recorded for everyone to see for many days. He also seems to forget that everyone can see his comment history and all the other retarded and racist things he has said over the years.

So while it MAY NOT have been a "threat" per se. It shows a propensity for violence when mere words are exchanged.

Standard Internet Tough Guy syndrome.

It doesn't even matter if he is a cop or not. Either way it makes him look bad. Either he's lying about being a cop. Or he is a cop and he's just a desk jockey talking tough. Or he is actually on the streets and we've seen first hand how quick to anger and racist he is (not to mention insecure). No scenario paints him in a good light.

And this is why you don't make appeals to authority. It's a logical fallacy in the first place and when you try to bring RL into an internet debate without using the disclaimer that it's all anecdotal anyway (there's that word again Lantern, maybe you really should look it up), it usually means your arguments don't have their own merits and it just devolves into "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality which pretty much means you've lost.

I think if I could just smash voodoo in the face one time that he would learn some manners because he does wallow in glee whenever he is able to troll someone, push all their buttons, and get away with it. Voodoo is not civil and needs to know that there are limits. Voodoo is the 'internet tough guy'. He knows that I cannot reach through the cloud and bust his nose.

Having said that, I have never struck anyone in 30 yrs of law enforcement experience. I have wrestled a few women, restrained a few men, tased one guy who was resisting arrest, never shot at anyone or used an asp on anyone.

I get along with everyone except for people who are temporarily full of themselves with attitude, but it's remarkable how docile people get after a few days in jail (I don't put them there, the court does). People with the biggest attitudes really go through a change of heart. I treat them kindly and considerately and get great results. I feel that if I treat them kindly that the next time they are less likely to assault another police officer.

Now it is reported that the police officer suffered a fractured eye socket due to being punched by the sweet 'gentle giant', who was just turning his life around and looking forward to college and a good life.

Wow, Lantern doubled down on his expressions of violence towards me. What say you @dag?

Wow, Lantern doubled down on his expressions of violence towards me. What say you @dag?

After all these comments I'd like to thank @bobknight33 for instantly redirecting the discussion away from the actual and important topic of police militarization and use of force against protests.
It is quite remarkable how well this tactic works in changing the attention of public outcry from the important to the negligible.

Sorry about the double post.. Been having problems with the site on mobile lately

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Is this thread in Ferguson? It feels like this thread is in Ferguson.

Everyone chill out or Ima lob some virtual tear gas up in here.

You fellas defending the cops need to think again.

You DO NOT SHOOT except to SAVE LIFE. I don't care if its Charlie Manson - if he's unarmed and surrendering in broad daylight YOU DO NOT SHOOT HIM.

Failure to respect this code leads to paranoia, violence, rage, hatred and TOTAL SOCIAL APOCALYPSE.

Ferguson will get back from the brink but only because of people who understand that.

Btw Norway has the most liberal, kindest, most forgiving judicial system in the world (AFAIK) and also the LOWEST REOFFENDNG AND CRIME RATES.

USA reoffending rate 85%. Incarceration rate highest outside of Somalia. So if the moral spiritual ethical stance is too lefty for you try BASIC FUCKING STRATEGY.

The officer shot to save his own life, which is perfectly legit. According to witnesses, the perp was not surrendering, but believe anything you like.

Why do people think that cops are supermen, able to shoot someone in the leg, or experts at MMA or submission holds, etc?

I bet you couldn't handcuff your own girlfriend/boyfriend if they didn't want you to, go ahead and try it.

As for Norway...well, that's a whole 'nother country.

Also, punching voodoo is just a fantasy for me, although I think it would do him a world of good. Now who can honestly say that being more mannerly and civil wouldn't be a good thing for ole voodoo?

Nice backpedal there. Fortunately for the rest of us civilized beings, we don't threaten violence when we disagree with someone.

a bit ago, you wanted to smash my face and nose, now it's just a punch. That's quite the downgrade.

I've known at least two cases of people who made threats over the internet, who were absolute psychos and probably wouldn't have bothered with threats at all had they been able to be there in person. They'd have simply shown up with their blowtorch and baseball bat.
The fact that threats are made over the internet means diddly-squat. Threats were made, that's the only part that matters.

Do you believe everything the police tell you? Where that story started.
https://twitter.com/ChristineDByers/status/501556693382094848

which i found here
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mike-brown-autopsy/

I havent been following this at all but thought this was interesting.

Grabbing at a gun is immediate grounds for deadly force in every case, law, home, etc. I only say this because the suspect obviously upped the ante to that zone with no regard for human life. Second, "witnesses" were there to see it all...that's not a good thing and ups the ante far, far more... witnesses are either friends or someone the cop has no idea who they are. That means they are potentially dangerous, especially in a city where blacks (by their own heartfelt admissions) HATE white police officers with a huge passion. I am not saying the racists are not justified, as they clearly have been profiled and such, but this is clearly the case. No confusion should ever arise in dispute of the fact that bystanders are different than potential dangers. If the officer does taze and someone gets involved, he is a dead mother fucker because now he is occupied with a screaming, shitting-self man who is 100% willing to murder him, as already displayed, and someone else. Lastly, the tazer does not always work. And when the tazer does work, immediately afterwards you are 100% capable of using your body to 100% again. Most people think that then tazer magically incapacitates someone for a long time. No--when you release that trigger the tazer's effects are over.
In my opinion deadly force is not the last option. It is the option right before you die.

Now the responses are, for certain, based on stupid choices. The chief trying to minimize was what we all do but pretty dumb. You ever comfort a kid that he might not be hurt so he doesn't feel pain or freak out? Happens, even if the kid is really really hurt and the ambulance is on the way. Stupid choice...and the releasing of the video is iffy at best. What pisses me off most is that it was not meant to calm down the violence, but to appease the nation's view of Ferguson's white people...

Grabbing at the officers gun would be immediate grounds for immediate use of deadly force, but once the suspect retreats and is no longer within reach of the officer those grounds have evaporated. The officer should afterwards be wary, but not act as if they are still in danger when the danger ended long before and now they are simply being disobeyed. That's not a legitimate reason for deadly force.
These 'witnesses' that corroborate the officers story are phantoms at best. No one has publicly come forward that corroborates his story that was actually there, all the known witnesses actually contradict the officers account and state that he was retreating, being shot at, flinched, turned, stumbled forward while raising his arms/grasping his sides and was shot another 5-6 times as he fell, including (according to the autopsy) once in the top of the head that exited through his eye...it's hard to see how he could both be a threat and in a position where he could be shot that way. I think if this was a citizen shooting, they would call that 'execution style'.
Attaching the statement of a single person or small group to an entire race is not only racist, it's simply wrong. No group is homogenous, they don't all see this the same way, even if their skin is similar in melanin content.
So, you seem to be saying a taser should only be attempted when the officer is backed up and the suspect is alone with no bystanders. I'll just say I disagree, it should always be the first choice when more than physical hands-on force is needed.
I'm guessing you've never been tazed. The complete incapacitation may stop when you stop the charge, but the residual pain, and the memory of that pain and knowledge that more can come instantly usually does stop even the angriest wanna-be supermen.