Yes, its a bad idea. Not surprising though. Cable companies do already monopolize most areas. Where I live I can only get timewarner. Some of my friends can only get comcast.

Again, these terms are misleading. Similar to those insurance commercials saying "50% of people switching to us over other leading insurance agencies saved an average of $500 a year". The information is true, but very misleading as it tells only a very small truth that leads you away from reality.

Here is another fact: That cop had no way of knowing he was facing a teen. He also had no way of knowing if Brown was trained or not. Therefore, you treat the person as if they are a trained adult.

I still have no opinion on who is guilty in this case. If the brown had his hands up, and was being compliant, than the officer is guilty of murder. If Brown was charging at the officer, than the shooting was justified.

My problem is with bias. Terms like"trained adult" or "unarmed teen" allude to Brown was an innocent young child with no means to protect himself and the officer had multiple ways to safely handle him. One could also call Brown a violent criminal, but this too would call attention away from the question of whether or not Brown was a threat (or there was reason to believe he was a threat) at the time he was shot.

I will say again, training does not make you super human. And being a "teen" (technically an adult), is not an indicator of someone's potential threat. I know many who have killed when they were 18/19 years of age. They too were just out of high school.

For starters the OP is HIGHLY speculative at best. Has nothing to do with the officer's habits and/or practices, just his exposure. It is highly unlikely that someone will steal cars and shoot at police after playing Grand Theft Auto.

Secondly (I must warn you as I am about to get graphic), it generally takes more than one shot to take someone down. People don't just collapse when they are hit like in the movies. Often times they are still combat effective after you fatally shoot them. I have seen people run a block or two after being shot in the chest, and admittedly, the 9mm round that most duty cops use are not that powerful so it doesn't help the situation. As a matter of fact, the theory behind using a firearm that shoots this type of round is that you can carry more bullets.

In this thread it was mentioned that a 5'3'' 115 lb woman can take down a 250lb man. It is POSSIBLE with training, but not always probable. Training does not make you super human. Drawing a firearm is often a recourse for those who protect and serve because it allows distance to be kept while control is gained over a situation. If someone charges that gun, they are a THREAT. There is no "armed threat" or "unarmed threat". Or "teenage threat" vs "adult threat". This is the REAL world. If you allow distance to be closed than you are increasing the possibility of the assailant being able to wrestle weapons away from you that you are carrying, which could be used against others after you are taken down. Again, training in the REAL world does not always determine the winner in a confrontation.

I have seen people with YEARS of martial arts training get dropped by some random guy from the streets with seemingly little effort.

That being said, from what I have seen police do need better training in some areas, but the expectation I have seen from a few on here is not only impractical, its just plain ludicrous.

That is precisely how you deal with individuals in the mindset of those jihadists.

Its not pretty but it's a language they understand.

I realize it would not tell the whole story. But it would help. Anyone with an ounce of training is trained to shoot center mass. If he consistently pulls high and to the left it would help collaborate the story of him surrendering. If his grouping is center mass, than it paints a slightly different picture. The bullets struck the inner aspect of Brown's right arm, making a possible alignment to the officer's right unlikely. However, using the officer's grouping as a lone piece of evidence is foolish.

That is running, not CHARGING. Just fyi. If one charges (meaning accelerates at a rapid rate) than physics require you either lean forward or fall over backwards. This is a fact. And just to clarify, the word "threat" implies "deadly threat". There is no "non-deadly threat" in situations such as this. There are only the terms "potential threat" and "threat".

Now to the conversation in general, I would like to see the officers shot patterns on a shooting range. The bullets seem to pull to the left. I wonder if this is something he consistently does. It would help determine the body position of Mr. Brown at the time the shots were fired.

You are strong to have not let these events corrupt you. I respect you for that.




As do I. All too well.

Thank you for your appreciation. And on the racial issue, I have to agree. Racism is an issue that stirs up controversy. Controversy sells news. Suppose it's only natural that the news would get hung up on it. Wish more folks would stick to the facts and digest things before letting their emotions go wild. The mob mentality never helped anybody.

Honestly I commend you on your peaceful outlook. If the entire world thought as you did there would be no murders.

Problem is, as Massagetrade pointed out, if all good people in the world took to this mentality, there would be no good people left. There is a time and place where deadly force is necessary, and it is a good thing there are those that know this.

Exactly

Officer needs prison, and the police department should pay settlement.

Sometimes I find myself asking why the mental screenings for becoming a police officer aren't more involved.

Again, training does not make you superhuman. Shooting to kill is not the first option, but neither is tasering. Any WELL-trained person know that different situations call for different methods of defense.

In the case mentioned in the OP the assailant was displaying erratic behavior (increasing threat level), he showed non-compliance (increasing threat level), and turned to charge the person defending a family(who were likely in danger) which increases the threat level into the imminent danger category. He could have been concealing a knife, or be trained himself. He could be on drugs (which is a reasonable assumption) which increase his adrenaline making him deadlier. The gun would allow the most distance be kept, and provides the most reliable method of stopping the threat in this situation. Not to mention the officer off duty was carrying concealed. Pretty hard to conceal both a taser, and a firearm.

If the training you attended (or witnessed) does not support this, somebody lost money to a fraud. I have real world experience in war zones, and have had 1000's of hours of training. I would also be happy to fly out a re-train those classes for $75/hr plus the cost of lodging and travel.

Training does not turn you into a superhero with x-ray vision. Nor does it give you super strength. Nor is it a true determining factor of who has the advantage.

It takes less than a second to draw a weapon and shoot it.

Typically one would assume that a potential assailant would stop when a gun is pointed at him/her, when the one holding the gun announces him/her to do so. In this case, it would be much safer than pulling a taser on a charging target. On miss-fire, you are finished.

Again, having been trained, I have to say you lose a MASSIVE edge when your threat closes distance. You could be disarmed and your gun be used against you or you could be beaten to death if the person is larger than you, stronger than you, or manages to get in a lucky shot. A single blow to the head and it becomes difficult to make all the right moves to wrestle an assailant away.

And here is another important fact every hollywood rendition of combat seems to miss. People don't generally just "drop" when you fatally wound them. (Please excuse my graphic example, but I've seen someone take two shots to the torso with a military grade assault rifle, one through the chest, and he ran almost two blocks before collapsing) Get enough adrenaline going and it could take several shots, after the fatal one, in order to render someone "combat ineffective". Either way, time elapses, as does your chances of survival. It's a brutal game of chances. Only a fool, or someone who is has a genuine death wish would allow a threat to get close, without first being in control of the situation.

Yes and no. When someone is unarmed the potential threat has decreased. This increases again as the person closes distance since a person who is armed, at point-blank range, has very little advantage over someone who is unarmed. Again, you don't know the level of training the potential threat has. The physical size of the person is also a determining factor as size often indicates potential strength.

As a person who has been trained, I can tell you that it is INCREDIBLY foolish to allow a potential threat to reach point-blank range on his/her own terms. Armed or unarmed. If the person is non-compliant and closing the distance quickly, especially if the person has demonstrated erratic, and/or dangerous behavior, they are a high-level threat, and you are in imminent danger.

Only reason I brought that one up is the simple fact that they can strongly influence the stock market and invest with insider knowledge. This is illegal if you are a civilian, but not for a senator/congressman. At least this has been my understanding.

This is quite interesting... thanks for info.

I agree and disagree.

I believe a big part of the issue is in distancing ourselves from personal responsibility.

For instance; punishing a child for a devious act is how the child grows, and learns coping skills and mechanisms to deal with rules, interactions with others, and things like rejection which we encounter on a daily basis. When that child has been coddled, over-sheltered, and/or "spoiled", he or she often lacks coping skills required to deal with "grown-up life".

So I agree with the concept of looking for a way to fix a broken mechanism, but I don't see where it can be separated from personal responsibility.