We need to remember he was not a child. As he was eighteen years old he is a legal adult, he is also as the above guest posted six foot four and close to three hundred pounds. This is not a child, this is a full grown man.
White privilege at its finest. We can sing kumbaya all day long because we aren't the oppressed race. I certainly support the cops defending their lives, but I feel in many cases maybe they should have gone for a non-lethal shot, such as the leg or shoulder
Police are not allowed to shoot to maim. Please explain how a peaceful demonstration is "White privilege". Are they supposed to burn shit beat up cameramen?
I agree with peaceful demonstration, but I also think it's telling that, as stated, there were no people of color there. It's a symptom of a large problem here in America.
It seems like it's older white people who drag their kids along and force their views on them. Yes, not all cops are bad but they can get away with being bad which isn't good at all.
Though for all we know this could be St. Louis in an earlier year ( but then again probably not )
White privilege at its finest? What about white people protesting peacefully while the so called "oppressed race" goes around looting stores, burning cars, throwing things, causing damage, committing arson, and causing havoc? There is no "oppressed race".
The media would rather show only the bad sides of people. That way they get people talking
13Reply
deleted
· 9 years ago
Because the media knows setting shit on fire is way more fun! I bet you once the media put down their cameras they were like "Well, now that that's over. Frank hand me my Molotov cocktail, it's time to fuck shit up!"
I wonder if it's because the KKK was actively supporting the police via demonstrations, and they really didnt want to show that. Leaving the facts of the case, and what has been reported to have happened from either side, no one wants to be seen as on the same side as the KKK. (Well, nobody good.)
Ok so I don't know if this is a national rule or just my state but when a police officer was doing a presentation about his job at my middle school he said that they weren't allowed to "just shoot them in the leg" like some of you are suggesting. Kill shot or don't shoot is the general rule.
That is what they are supposed to do if they don't see an imminent threat to their life or others'. But the thing is that it isn't some cut and dry thing, there are a lot of factors that play into a police officer's decisions that we could not possibly grasp unless we had experience as an officer. I'm not saying what this guy did was right or wrong, I'm just saying that we could never really understand everything about what happened.
Superchicken is correct. The whole shot them in the leg is a thing of the movies. Police officers are trained to aim for center mass if they are discharging their weapons. It isn't the greatest of policies but it definitely isn't a new one.
It was said that the officer shot him, paused, waiting for him to fall to the ground, but he kept coming. He did this several times but he kept charging at him.
i'd like to see people who hate all police deal with a world without them. Here in the UK, I don't hear stories about our police shooting people. They're almost all from America. Instead of claiming that everybody in the police are shoot first types, look at all the times that the police have SAVED people. Or if that's not enough- GET SOMEONE TO SORT YOUR BLOODY POLICE SYSTEM OUT! Complaining online does nothing. Get enough people so that you can say "we get that they're useful, but this shouldn't be happening" and get something done!
It bothers me they make it a racial issue. There are good cops and bad cops. Problem is excessive force which I saw once being used towards my friend. I didn't take it as racial (we are Hispanics) that guy was just an ass. That shouldn't be happening. Now jury in this case decided it was not excessive and believed cop was afraid for his life
in that case, to be upset is 100% understandable. it just bugs me when you get people who just complain about how bad the police are online. It doesn't spread a good message. My dad is a cop so I've always been pretty secure about my faith in the British police. But in America it just seems to be getting out of hand- it's like it's worse to be a cop than a criminal
I currently study abroad in London and the reason regular police don't shoot here it's because they're not allow to carry guns instead they have batons. Personally I prefer for the police to carry guns instead of "baseball bats."
here in the UK- civilians mostly don't have guns or access to guns. the police do not use guns unless necessary. I don't think you can say it's better for police to have guns when everybody is complaining about how civilians are getting shot by police in America. We don't have as many school shootings or police shootings because we don't jump straight to guns here. The police here have batons and tasers- they can subdue a criminal with a smaller possibility of fatally wounding them. Trust me, we still have guns on hand. my dad is a firearms instructor.
Ah yes. The police. The police that shot Michael Brown. In the back. From 146 ft away. Then shot him four more times while he was on the ground. Dead. Then left his body on the ground for three hours. That police. That killed 12 yr old Tamir Rice seconds after seeing him. That police.
Get your facts straight. The autopsy revealed he wasn't shot in the back. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some need to think before they speak.
He man (of darker skin) had no weapons and barely posed a threat and instead of shooting him once in the leg like he could have HE FUCKING SHOT HIM SIX TIMES AND FUCKING KILLED HIM.
I'll confess I haven't followed this story from the beginning. However, I heard the victim attacked the cop. Now who knows what the "attack" really means. Regardless ...unless the cop sees a gun being pointed at him. Why shoot to kill? U r trained. Why don't just hurt the person for your safety. !?????
Well if you're a cop, who is trained with a gun, you could at least try not harming someone that bad rather than a bigger target on the body that would most likely kill them.
You all are fucking ignorant...The "kid" was going for his gun and got shot twice...and he had just robbed someone...get your facts straight before you open your mouth
If you read the medical examiner's report and testimony he clearly states that it definitely shows that the officer wasn't aiming for a kill shot as the bullet wounds penetrate first his shoulders and other fairly "unimportant"areas.
I thought the medical examiner didn't measure the distance, at least that's what they say in their testimony, that he didn't feel the need to measure because there were no uncertainties.
Just to help clarify some things, police officers are trained to neutralize a threat when it is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, this can mean shooting someone in the leg or shooting someone center of mass or in the head. Officers are also trained to aim center of mass by instinct because it is the largest possible target of a human silhouette, the head/arm/leg is just a smaller target that is harder to hit. plus getting shot in the torso is not a guaranteed kill shot. Just thought I would help clear that up.
Look under aggravated assault.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Aggravated-Assault.htm
Though for all we know this could be St. Louis in an earlier year ( but then again probably not )