Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

That was further than 2-3 feet away. 2 cops there. One could have tried a less lethal force while the other one covered him with a gun.

Wow. Twelve seconds between when the cops pulled up until the first shots were fired.

This IS a lethal force encounter. There is no in between.

During those 12 seconds they drew their firearms and gave clear and concise commands. Neither officer had any cover and aside from that small retaining wall, there was nothing between them and victim. They had to be cognizant of every round- where it might go, what was behind the victim.

Are there other threats or is this just one guy wandering around with a knife. Did he just stab someone or was he in a knife fight with another potential threat?

That victim was well within a grievous bodily harm or fatal distance if he charged.

Transitioning to a taser takes some time- holster and draw. During that period, there is only one firearm on the victim. Do you hope, if he charges, your partner makes a fatal shot? What if he misses? What if they suspect doesn't go down?

Most importantly, do you guys know that effective distance of a taser? Or it's maximum distance? Depending on make and model, effective range is somewhere around 15 feet and maximum somewhere around 25. And that is at a target standing straight in front of you not moving. Add in the fact, a target moves (this guy moved a lot) and baggy clothing (diminishes effectiveness of the taser) and well, the taser isn't looking like the best option.

So that took me maybe 8 minutes to compose. Lots to think about in 12 seconds?

And WE get to sit in front of our computer screens in our fruit of the looms eating cheetos to think about this stuff. Imagine pulling up to it, in context, with everything that is occurring down there, civilians watching and videotaping your every move... 12 seconds.

Edit - I won't even get into the bodies sympathetic response to such encounters. There are plenty of good books on the subject. "On Combat" by Dave Grossman is a good start.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Wow. Twelve seconds between when the cops pulled up until the first shots were fired.

This IS a lethal force encounter. There is no in between.

During those 12 seconds they drew their firearms and gave clear and concise commands. Neither officer had any cover and aside from that small retaining wall, there was nothing between them and victim. They had to be cognizant of every round- where it might go, what was behind the victim.

Are there other threats or is this just one guy wandering around with a knife. Did he just stab someone or was he in a knife fight with another potential threat?

That victim was well within a grievous bodily harm or fatal distance if he charged.

Transitioning to a taser takes some time- holster and draw. During that period, there is only one firearm on the victim. Do you hope, if he charges, your partner makes a fatal shot? What if he misses? What if they suspect doesn't go down?

Most importantly, do you guys know that effective distance of a taser? Or it's maximum distance? Depending on make and model, effective range is somewhere around 15 feet and maximum somewhere around 25. And that is at a target standing straight in front of you not moving. Add in the fact, a target moves (this guy moved a lot) and baggy clothing (diminishes effectiveness of the taser) and well, the taser isn't looking like the best option.

So that took me maybe 8 minutes to compose. Lot's to think about in 12 seconds?

And you get to sit in front of your computer screen in your fruit of the looms eating cheetos to think about this stuff. Imagine pulling up to it, in context, with everything that is occurring down there, civilians watching and videotaping your every move... 12 seconds.

I understand what does go down and never said it was not justified.

But yes overall , especially in an area where a state of emergency at least show that you have not just jumped to lethal that force.


The personal insults are not necessary. I'm not in a basement in my underwear. You can make a point without the personal attacks. Its not a classy move. I am willing to hear your opinions . Attack my opinion all you want but let's have a mature conversation from here on out with out the mud slinging.

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Are you a cop too?

I understand what does down and never said it was not justified.

But yes overall , especially in an area where a state of emergency at least show that you have not just jumped to lethal that force.


The personal insults are not necessary. I'm not in a basement in my underwear. You can make a point without the personal attacks. Its not a classy move. I am willing to hear your opinions . Attack my opinion all you want but let's have a mature conversation from here on out with out the mud slinging.

Hah. I didn't mean YOU... That should have said WE... it was directed at any reader, including myself. Sensitive tonight... Sheesh... Ill edit it, however I never said you were in your basement (where'd that come from).

[cal_guy]

Here's a good rundown on the issues facing Ferguson. What stood out is the fact that a quarter of Ferguson's budget comes from traffic fines.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/20/6046319...l-brown-causes

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Hah. I didn't mean YOU... That should have said WE... it was directed at any reader, including myself. Sensitive tonight... Sheesh... Ill edit it, however I never said you were in your basement (where'd that come from).

Well I appreciate that. It seems we had crossed wires between our posts. When I was quoted I assumed you directed it to me .

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by nik-

Poor Bagor doesn't realize who he's arguing with

He also agreed with the trayvon martin shooting was justified so.. Dontnwaste to much time arguing.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

He also agreed with the trayvon martin shooting was justified so.. Dontnwaste to much time arguing.

Justified? Or agreed with the non-guilty verdict?

Guess what? Many people who actually followed the case and didn't make up their minds before the evidence was presented agreed with the verdict. Including the jury...

Innocent until proven guilty. Not many were claiming that the prosecutor came close to proving guilty on that one.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Justified? Or agreed with the non-guilty verdict?

Guess what? Many people who actually followed the case and didn't make up their minds before the evidence was presented agreed with the verdict. Including the jury...

Innocent until proven guilty. Not many were claiming that the prosecutor came close to proving guilty on that one.

I think many actually disagree with that. Does it matter the symatntics? Both are one and the same with that case.

You must be a cop? Or at least wanted to be one

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Justified? Or agreed with the non-guilty verdict?

Guess what? Many people who actually followed the case and didn't make up their minds before the evidence was presented agreed with the verdict. Including the jury...

Innocent until proven guilty. Not many were claiming that the prosecutor came close to proving guilty on that one.

Don't end your point with a demeaning tone.

I did follow the case closely. Just because the defending attorney presented the case better does not mean a crime did not take place.


Just because you argue a point , does not not mean it is the whole truth. Just means your a better salesman.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I think many actually disagree with that.

Disagree with what? That the jury found him not-guilty?

Yes, a lot of people made up their minds before the trial. When it came to the actual trial though many people agree that the prosecutors did a terrible job and the defense attorney was excellent in showcasing how Zimmerman's wounds were consistent with having his head smashed into the concrete floor and the gun shot was consistent with him being on the bottom. Fortunately we live in a society (even if it's south of our border) that values a fair trial system with the presumption of innocence. Does that mean sometimes bad people (for lacking of better phrasing) go free? Yes, but it's a lot better than the alternative. In the Trayvon Martin case it meant going with the little evidence there was and finding Zimmerman not-guilty of murder. Which means exactly what it says, there wasn't enough to prove him guilty of murder, not necessarily that he was innocent.

Again, it simply comes down to innocent until proven guilty.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Don't end your point with a demeaning tone.

In what way was that demeaning?

I did follow the case closely. Just because the defending attorney presented the case very sloppy, does not mean a crime did not take place.

Like I said people made up their mind about the case and didn't care for the actual trial, those that did seemed to generally (although that's a reach considering the controversy) agree with the verdict, as in it wasn't a surprised when it was reached - not that they thought he was innocent.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

In what way was that demeaning?



Like I said people made up their mind about the case and didn't care for the actual trial, those that did seemed to generally (although that's a reach considering the controversy) agree with the verdict, as in it wasn't a surprised when it was reached - not that they thought he was innocent.

It does sound like you had made up your mind before that verdict came out to. After all it was not a surprise to you.
I again state the better man at arguing won. It does not mean those were actual facts. Many times the defense has gotten things stricken from the record that legally could have swung the case.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

It does sound like you had made up your mind before that verdict came out to. After all it was not a surprise to you.

What?

No, when the jury went into deliberation the consensus was that the jury was going to come out with a not-guilty verdict. This was after the trial, not before...

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What?

No, when the jury went into deliberation the consensus was that the jury was going to come out with a not-guilty verdict. This was after the trial, not before...

Was that consensus on fox?

The people around america thought he would at least get a manslaughter charge.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I again state the better man at arguing won. It does not mean those were actual facts. Many times the defense has gotten things stricken from the record that legally could have swung the case.

Okay, so you agree that the defense attorney was better than the prosecutor?

We, and pretty much every single person who followed the case, felt that way.

And while it's not perfect, that means the guilty-verdict was reasonable and justified. You can't start putting away and finding people guilty because you think someone committed a crime, you need to prove it in a court of law. You seem to agree that didn't happen. What's the argument? Do you disagree with the innocent until proven guilty? Or do you believe that Zimmerman was somehow proven guilty?

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Okay, so you agree that the defense attorney was better than the prosecutor?

We, and pretty much every single person who followed the case, felt that way.

And while it's not perfect, that means the guilty-verdict was reasonable and justified. You can't start putting away and finding people guilty because you think someone committed a crime, you need to prove it in a court of law. You seem to agree that didn't happen. What's the argument? Do you disagree with the innocent until proven guilty? Or do you believe that Zimmerman was somehow proven guilty?

Yes I have always agreed with guilty unless proven innocent.

Guilty unless proven innocent should leave no questionable doubt. There was qustiinabale doubt tho.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Yes I have always agreed with guilty unless proven innocent.

Guilty unless proven innocent should leave no questionable doubt. There was qustiinabale doubt tho.

Oh I see.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Oh I see.

That was a drinking mistake. Should of been the other way around . my statement of no doubt is true.

edit: like you have never made a mistake typing when your drunk.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

He also agreed with the trayvon martin shooting was justified so.. Dontnwaste to much time arguing.

And I was correct that time as well. It is hard not to let emotion get in the way of rational thought.

In the Brown case I predict the same thing. People are connecting the dots based on emotion and not based on facts. Evidence is barely available and there are riots. Only the evidence can be used in court, we will know more in time.

This thread already has personal attacks, pretty standard it seems.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Don't end your point with a demeaning tone.

.

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I think many actually disagree with that. Does it matter the symatntics? Both are one and the same with that case.

You must be a cop? Or at least wanted to be one