Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 74 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
The officers are not on scene to make friends with protestors. They are there to prevent violence.

I would argue that the police are there to protect the community. Obviously, that means taking steps to ensure that peace is maintained and any violent action is prevented. However, you will never convince me that the steps taken the day after the shooting were warranted; appearing in full military gear, aiming weapons with live ammunition at peaceful protesters, firing teargas at assembled protesters absent any violence from citizens, arresting members of the media and threatening to shoot or kill people is not in the best interests of "protecting the community," it is escalating a non-violent situation purely as a show of force, and that is not what I want from police. Ever. Period.

I don't have any knowledge of police training, I just know that some times the only way to get a crazy person to not do what they intend to do, is to act crazier than that person.

That's idiotic. You're saying the best way for the police to deal with a deranged lunatic is to break out the weapons and start screaming? I'd argue the best way is to engage in a deescalation of hostility, and if the lunatic remains unresponsive, belligerent or violent, engage a non-lethal method to subdue and detain the person, all the while ensuring the safety of onlookers. You can do that without escalating hostilities. Police do it all the time. I've seen them bring down crazy people on drugs in my own city without waving guns around and threatening to kill someone. So I completely reject your idea that the police should "act crazier" than crazy people.

The officer doesn't know for 100% sure which person in the crowd is just there to sing kumbaya and which person is about to throw a molotov cocktail.

Absolutely true. Is that to say that all protests should be disallowed because someone may turn to violence? If all we're worried about is security, why allow freedom at all? Freedom allows dangerous people an opportunity to harm us. We have to weigh the cost of harm against lost liberty. The founders of the country did, and they decided that the people should be allowed to peaceably assemble. So while it may be difficult for police to gauge who in a crowd is likely to incite violence, I don't believe that means giving them carte blanche to declare when a protest is allowed or not. It's a shitty position to put them in, but is it moreso than restricting our Constitutional rights?

And here is the flip side to your rant - Who is qualified for police work, and why isn't that person joining the force? Holds true for any organization or business, you don't have the luxury of picking and choosing the best people in the world, you have to get by the best you can with the resources available to you.

If police are having a problem staffing departments, perhaps they should offer better incentives to encourage the right kind of people to join the police force. Lack of applicants shouldn't mean we have decided it's OK for police officers to abuse their position of authority. "Yeah, he keeps threatening to shoot civilians, but... he's got tenure." That's an insane reason to keep the status quo, especially if the status quo is resulting in the unnecessary injury or death of civilians.

I don't actually dislike police; I think they're asked to do a hell of a demanding and thankless job and most of them do a great job at it. But we do need a better system of weeding out the bad apples, because they ruin the credibility of everyone else on the force. And if a community doesn't feel like it can trust its police force, everything falls apart (as is happening in Ferguson).
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
513
126

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,567
836
126
They can't due to HIPAA. Only the officer can release it.

This is the internet, it would get leaked. I guarantee you 100% if there was a video of Brown flipping off an old white lady 2 years ago it would be all over the net. And if the officer had said damages releasing a picture would I dunno, help people who are on the fence believe his story? While by the nature of him being a white officer and the person he shot being black. I know in a lot of peoples mind that's all they need to know he's not guilty here. But there are a good number of people who can't based guilt or innocent on shit like that, or shit like speculation. I know if it was me I would be releasing every thing I had that proved my story was legit.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
I know if it was me I would be releasing every thing I had that proved my story was legit.

It's not for him to prove he's innocent. A police officer knows that best. He doesn't have to do anything. It's the other side who want him guilty that needs to provide the evidence for guilt.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,974
6,325
136
It's not for him to prove he's innocent. A police officer knows that best. He doesn't have to do anything. It's the other side who want him guilty that needs to provide the evidence for guilt.
I agree but the information might calm the situation.
 

BeeBoop

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2013
1,677
0
0
It's not for him to prove he's innocent. A police officer knows that best. He doesn't have to do anything. It's the other side who want him guilty that needs to provide the evidence for guilt.

That's how it's supposed to be but with what happen to George Zimmerman, it's best to have some physical evidence to exonerates you.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,061
8,082
136
It's not for him to prove he's innocent. A police officer knows that best. He doesn't have to do anything. It's the other side who want him guilty that needs to provide the evidence for guilt.

It's not disputed that he shot an unarmed teen, at distance.

So his defense must rest on why he shot. That requires explanation, no?
1: He was viciously assaulted.
2: Brown turned around and charged back towards him.
3: Brown was only stopped 2-3 feet away.
Evidence of these things are crucial for us not the judge the cop as having done something wrong, such as shooting an unarmed teen at a distance of 35 feet as the other side would have us believe. Frankly, I believe it. I need evidence to say otherwise. I need those witnesses who back the officer's story, because without such evidence I'm heavily leaning towards convicting him.

A person shouldn't do what he is claimed to have done. I need evidence that's not what happened.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
This is the internet, it would get leaked. I guarantee you 100% if there was a video of Brown flipping off an old white lady 2 years ago it would be all over the net. And if the officer had said damages releasing a picture would I dunno, help people who are on the fence believe his story? While by the nature of him being a white officer and the person he shot being black. I know in a lot of peoples mind that's all they need to know he's not guilty here. But there are a good number of people who can't based guilt or innocent on shit like that, or shit like speculation. I know if it was me I would be releasing every thing I had that proved my story was legit.
Make up your mind, do you want it leaked or released?

It has been leaked. It can't be released due to HIPAA. He was injured at work. The employer is the police department. Ergo the injury report is HIPAA protected.

This is not rocket science.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,220
18,683
146
I've never understood this line of thinking. If my worst enemy wanted to give me money I would happily take it and put it toward productive uses - probably to their ruin.

Accepting money from the KKK during a race fueled shit show is just plain dumb. It's basically like the LEO is admitting he's racist and doesn't give a fuck.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
It'd be quite funny if he could find a way to make a truly anonymous donation to college funds for minorities with that money. Then tell the KKK "Hey guess where your money went?"

So you're advocating spending the KKK's money...

Of course you don't.

.....

...but then giving me the nonuseful "of course you don't" with the ominous dot dot dots after saying basically the same thing I said?

I don't know how to interpret this, could you perhaps explain it to me? It seems contradictory on the face.

Accepting money from the KKK during a race fueled shit show is just plain dumb. It's basically like the LEO is admitting he's racist and doesn't give a fuck.

1) it's only race fueled for one side
2) Would it be better to spend the KKK's money on 2x4's, kerosene, and finely embroidered hoods or dash cams for the patrol cars?
 
Last edited:

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
So you're advocating spending the KKK's money...



...but then giving me the nonuseful "of course you don't" with the ominous dot dot dots after saying basically the same thing I said?

I don't know how to interpret this, could you perhaps explain it to me? It seems contradictory on the face.



1) it's only race fueled for one side
2) Would it be better to spend the KKK's money on 2x4's, kerosene, and finely embroidered hoods or dash cams for the patrol cars?

Speaking of dash cams. FPD had recently received the dash and officer cams they had ordered earlier. They just had not been deployed yet.
 

BeeBoop

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2013
1,677
0
0
I hope something good comes out of this, like requiring all officers to wear a chest camera.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,220
18,683
146
1) it's only race fueled for one side
2) Would it be better to spend the KKK's money on 2x4's, kerosene, and finely embroidered hoods or dash cams for the patrol cars?

No, it would be better to say FU to the KKK.
 

MetalMat

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
9,687
36
91
1) it's only race fueled for one side
2) Would it be better to spend the KKK's money on 2x4's, kerosene, and finely embroidered hoods or dash cams for the patrol cars?

Could you imagine the headlines if he actually took money from the KKK, no matter how he spent it?
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
Speaking of dash cams. FPD had recently received the dash and officer cams they had ordered earlier. They just had not been deployed yet.

I saw that after I posted, what terrible luck.

No, it would be better to say FU to the KKK.

So you're advocating that the KKK spend their own money on cross burnings and fancy ghost costumes rather than useful civic works. This is what I don't understand. Don't the police seize drug money, how is racist money any different?

Could you imagine the headlines if he actually took money from the KKK, no matter how he spent it?

Yes, I'm sure deep thinkers would have a field day. This contributes to the reasons we can't have nice things.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,220
18,683
146
So you're advocating that the KKK spend their own money on cross burnings and fancy ghost costumes rather than useful civic works. This is what I don't understand. Don't the police seize drug money, how is racist money any different?

Drugs and racism, aww yea....so much in common. Seriously.

I missed the part where the police have used seized KKK money.

And yes, I'd rather the KKK spend their money on they're own stupid ceremonies.

Do you really think that accepting KKK money, right now, in this specific situation, is the right thing to do? Like it won't piss off the community more?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Seems like he would have been arrested for busting the curfew, not for smoking.

If there is rioting, and you get arrested, it's probably going to be at gunpoint.
Still, if I'm smoking (which I don't do) on my own front porch, I don't see that as breaking curfew. I'm not in public, I'm on my own damned porch. If the guy's throwing rocks or shooting or screwing his Rottweiler I can see that he's affecting the public, but smoking?

Or he meant he was going to shoot the light out. I know I wouldn't want to be blinded by a light when there's the potential for rocks, bottles, and the like being thrown at you by rioters.
It's certainly a reasonable concern. A threat to shoot the reporter is not a reasonable way to address this reasonable concern.

Jaywalking is certainly a crime that deserves being shot for.
Which is probably why he was not shot for jaywalking.

Honestly, this is not a difficult concept. Committing a minor infraction does not grant one license to behave however one damned well pleases thereafter. Neither does any other form of disrespect.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Still, if I'm smoking (which I don't do) on my own front porch, I don't see that as breaking curfew. I'm not in public, I'm on my own damned porch. If the guy's throwing rocks or shooting or screwing his Rottweiler I can see that he's affecting the public, but smoking?


It's certainly a reasonable concern. A threat to shoot the reporter is not a reasonable way to address this reasonable concern.


Which is probably why he was not shot for jaywalking.

Honestly, this is not a difficult concept. Committing a minor infraction does not grant one license to behave however one damned well pleases thereafter. Neither does any other form of disrespect.

I was not able to find anyone who'd been arrested for smoking on their porch.

I was able to find people who were smoking in their car in a driveway, who'd been arrested for breaking the curfew.

There was no threat to shoot the reporter with a firearm, imo. The threat was to shoot them with a less than lethal device, imo.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
Drugs and racism, aww yea....so much in common. Seriously.

I missed the part where the police have used seized KKK money.

And yes, I'd rather the KKK spend their money on they're own stupid ceremonies.

Do you really think that accepting KKK money, right now, in this specific situation, is the right thing to do? Like it won't piss off the community more?

The similarity is that one could consider drug money and racist's money ill gotten. Clearly how the money was collected is of no consequence because cities and states are perfectly happy to auction drug cars, boats, and houses and spend drug money on whatever they waste money on these days.

So you would rather the KKK throw a hoedown than put an underprivileged child through college? (that was blankslates example, wasn't it?)

I don't think it's the wrong thing to do because how the money is spent determines the morality. I defy the community to riot over giving opportunities to people from the community.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,220
18,683
146
I don't think it's the wrong thing to do because how the money is spent determines the morality. I defy the community to riot over giving opportunities to people from the community.

I think it's the wrong thing to do. Especially at this time.

edit
So you would rather the KKK throw a hoedown than put an underprivileged child through college? (that was blankslates example, wasn't it?)

yes, you're damn right I do. And a hoedown doesn't cost $50k+ (that's a a lowball estimate, of course.)
 
Last edited: