Basically, what I'm saying is that more money and research should be put into effective less-lethal weapons, especially for police use. Maybe there'll be some breakthrough, something that allows the police to incapacitate with the same effectiveness as firearms...

Until then, I'm going to stick to doing exactly what that cop says, no matter what I think about the police, or how many things I've shoplifted. Prison may be the worst experience in a person's life, but it's a damn sight better than dying.

alright, from what I know aboutnwhat is happening in Ferguson, a congressman,, whose name I do not recall wanted the police to no longer be in control of the situation in Ferguson.. However he said that we do not need people in military dearer patrolling the streets Ferguson. However in the next breath he demanded that the National Guard be sent down to Ferguson. If we don't need people in military gear patrolling the streets, why do we need people guard who I assume will be in military uniform patrolling the streets??it does not makes sense to me. At the same time however however,you have police officers arresting the media. however the people who are being arrested are in a way very funny they tend to be the same people who are claiming that the Constitution is dead and old and outdated and no longer applicable. Yes as soon as they are arrested you have them complaining that their civil rights are being trampled is the Constitution is outdated they do not have civil rights so it is kind of funny. Anyway, if martial law does happened in Ferguson I guarantee that what will happen will not be pretty.under martial law you do not have civil rights. the National Guard can commit warrantless searches of your house and property and if they are attacked by people throwing Molotov cocktails at them they will fire back and it will be very very ugly. If martial law happens in Ferguson, we will see something that only happens in 3rd world dictatorial countries. You will have the army firing upon civilians if the order goes out that you are not allowed to protest and people are not allowed together in groups larger than three., it will lead to a massacre. If the protesters do not become peaceful there will be more blood spilled in Ferguson.

sorry for the spelling errors I am using voice recognition software to write this, because it is easier for me to speak my thoughts, then it is for me to type them.

Imperfectionist said Basically, what I'm saying is that more money and research should be put into effective less-lethal weapons, especially for police use. Maybe there'll be some breakthrough, something that allows the police to incapacitate with the same effectiveness as firearms...

Yeah. If only short ranged 100% guaranteed to stun instantly with extremely minimal chance of killing weapons existed. If. Only.

Brovo said
Yeah. If only short ranged 100% guaranteed to stun instantly with extremely minimal chance of killing weapons existed. If. Only.

Not 100% at all actually. Thick clothing can defeat it and it is generally a 1 shot weapon. If you only have 1 shot to use it there are too many situations where your life is still in great danger.

All those who want the cop to shoot to wound,

Let's assume Dorian Johnson's ridiculous story is true. This same cop you claim was capable of laserlike precision, had a simply dreadful grouping at (at most) 60 feet. It's like two feet from forearm to forearm unless his arms were perfectly vertical, in which case his forearms would be further from his head. (If Brown moved his arms after getting shot, the grouping is worse.) This while he had as much time to aim or even get closer as he pleased. How is this cop, who shoots worse than I did when I was eight, supposed to be this 2160-noscope sniper when Brown was charging him, when he would have a few seconds tops to aim, and hit a moving leg? Exacerbated if Brown was zig-zagging and juking. Is Wilson this Roman God of accuracy, or isn't he?

Brovo said
Yeah. If only short ranged 100% guaranteed to stun instantly with extremely minimal chance of killing weapons existed. If. Only.

Not exactly 100%. A law enforcement research group did a study of multiple taser brands, and found a maximum accuracy of both barbs hitting the target of 91%, while the lower end of the surveyed brands was 73%, all at 13 ft on a static target. And thats just accuracy, thats not counting the fact some people can resist it, while others can quickly pull the barbs out, minimizing stunning. Only a relatively small amount of people can do that, but the factor still exists.

http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/psdb09-02.pdf <- Heres the study I referenced if you want to check it out, its actually pretty interesting.

Omega said
Not 100% at all actually. Thick clothing can defeat it and it is generally a 1 shot weapon. If you only have 1 shot to use it there are too many situations where your life is still in great danger.

Zendric said
Not exactly 100%. A law enforcement research group did a study of multiple taser brands, and found a maximum accuracy of both barbs hitting the target of 91%, while the lower end of the surveyed brands was 73%, all at 13 ft on a static target. And thats just accuracy, thats not counting the fact some people can resist it, while others can quickly pull the barbs out, minimizing stunning. Only a relatively small amount of people can do that, but the factor still exists.

http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/psdb09-02.pdf <- Heres the study I referenced if you want to check it out, its actually pretty interesting.

^ Yep (also, look up how much more expensive police-grade tasers are, for an absolutely less effective weapon). I'm sorry, Brovo, you aren't going to win this one, unless you visit your local police station and videotape an interview of them saying that shooting to wound is a reasonable practice in actively dangerous situations.

Imperfectionist said
^ Yep (also, look up how much more expensive police-grade tasers are, ). I'm sorry, Brovo, you aren't going to win this one, unless you visit your local police station and videotape an interview of them saying that shooting to wound is a reasonable practice in actively dangerous situations.

I'd put money on Brovo never shooting anything harder than a milk jug at 20 feet with a .22 on a bench rest.

So Boerd said
I'd put money on Brovo never shooting anything harder than a milk jug at 20 feet with a .22 on a bench rest.

Well, you don't know that, and neither do I. Brovo might have considerable experience with firearms, and has simply never been fearful for his life and using a gun at the same time.

So Boerd said I'd put money on Brovo never shooting anything harder than a milk jug at 20 feet with a .22 on a bench rest.

Man it's almost like I didn't claim any personal knowledge of firearms whatsoever.

Imperfectionist said Well, you don't know that, and neither do I. Brovo might have considerable experience with firearms, and has simply never been fearful for his life using a gun at the same time.

Nope. I don't. I never claimed it either.

Omega said
Not 100% at all actually. Thick clothing can defeat it and it is generally a 1 shot weapon. If you only have 1 shot to use it there are too many situations where your life is still in great danger.

The more I know-- *Drowned under a sea of good points about tasers*

Look, the part that still has me confused is how in the hell this story is supposed to come together. I'm no master of firearms but I know how to tell a story. So if Brown was charging at the officer, and he opened fire then, he was either panicking or incompetent to fire several shots in rapid succession instead of one or two aimed shots to the torso for an easy take down. I'm at least aware enough about firearms to know that you're supposed to aim, then fire. If you go with the "he panicked" route, then what the fuck is that man doing with a firearm when he panics at the sight of a single unarmed civilian charging him?

Situation two, he struggled to retain control of his firearm against an assailant. He is firing at point blank range. Where is the gunpowder residue. Even if it dissipates at a short range, I'm not buying the whole "the gun could not have been pointed at Brown when it went off" story. Last I checked you have to point a gun at a person in order for the bullet to go towards that person. Unless one is proposing that the officer did a noscope 360 deflection shot off the hood of his squad car. Now, again, I'm no expert on firearms, but I'm fairly sure it's more believable to assume that he probably pointed his firearm at Brown when he scored six successive shots.

Situation three, the most believable one to me if Brown is the assailant. He failed to open fire on Brown when Brown charged. Brown grappled for the firearm. Brown is kicked away and raises his arms up to try and instinctively protect himself from the bullets. The cop panic fires and riddles Brown with several rounds. This would be just enough distance to dissipate residue.

This, however, still fails to answer the character question. Why would Brown, who had no criminal record or history of mental disorders, do this? Why would he charge the officer? What logical reasoning could there be for Brown to suddenly become this brazen bullet-sponge? It doesn't make any sense. No rational person goes for the gun like that. Something about this story from the cop's angle does not match up whatsoever to how Brown likely would have reacted. This is further damning when you include witness testimony.

At the end of the day though, as I said earlier, there's nothing of any fruit that could be added. Everything that needed to be said has already been said, any arguing here is just going around in circles based on whether you prefer the cop's side of the story or the witnesses' side of the story.

At the very least though, I learned more shit about tasers. That'll show me for assuming anything, I got taught a lesson.

So Boerd said
In your arms? People break hands and arms all the time (the genesis of bullet pain in a limb is the broken bone) in fights and then run off. The maximum rate of a beretta (vaguely aimed shots) is about 90 rpm. Meaning he had around 3 seconds to react before the eye shot

Have you ever been shot four times in the arms? I'm told it's not a pleasant experience.

Edit: And when I say 'you,' I'm not talking about your character in Battlefield.

Okay. Third attempt to try and get this post up. Silly RPG.

Omega said Not 100% at all actually. Thick clothing can defeat it and it is generally a 1 shot weapon. If you only have 1 shot to use it there are too many situations where your life is still in great danger.

*Drowned in good points about tasers, won't make that mistake again*

Imperfectionist said
Well, you don't know that, and neither do I. Brovo might have considerable experience with firearms, and has simply never been fearful for his life using a gun at the same time.

Never even claimed firearms experience.

So I learned a lot about tasers just now. That's cool.

As for the scenarios involved, I just want to quickly point out... I'm fairly sure you have to point a gun at someone in order for bullets to hit them. I'm not a master of firearms, obviously, but, unless we're implying the officer has 360 noscope headshot powers...

Zendric said (And also further serves to illustrate that there was likely a struggle for the weapon in the car considering the gun could not have been pointed at Brown when it went off.)

If the gun could not have been pointed at Brown when it went off, how did six bullets find their way into Brown's body? Unless you mean that the gun did not go off in the vehicle?

Does this mean the officer knocked Brown away, then Brown raised his arms instinctively to protect himself and was gunned down by a panicking officer? That's a likely story, maybe.

Alas, though, y'all have quite thoroughly made your points and articulated them well with sources. I am beaten and left to think on this.



G'day folks. Though, one more thing...

So Boerd said I'd put money on Brovo never shooting anything harder than a milk jug at 20 feet with a .22 on a bench rest.

When will you learn this is not a valid form of argument. You were merely damaging the arguments of others on your side, not helping them. Just food for thought.

mdk said
Have you ever been shot four times in the arms? I'm told it's not a pleasant experience.Edit: And when I say 'you,' I'm not talking about your character in Battlefield.

It would take more willpower to stay statuesque still like the opposing theory suggests.

Brovo said
If the gun could not have been pointed at Brown when it went off, how did six bullets find their way into Brown's body? Unless you mean that the gun did not go off in the vehicle?

I will explain my meaning further, I can see how it was a bit confusing(I do tend to get ahead of myself when writing and not include things I thought I did/was thinking about).

What I meant was, the fact that there was no residue on Brown at all meant that when the gun went off inside the vehicle(there was one shot that occurred during the controversial sequence with Brown at the window of the vehicle the officer was in separate from the others when the officer was outside) it was not pointed at or nearly at Brown as the gunpowder residue is distributed in a rough cone 1-1.5 feet in front of the muzzle. This, at least in my mind, indicates a struggle for the weapon.

Brovo said
You were merely damaging the arguments of others on your side, not helping them. Just food for thought.

Indeed, ad homs accomplish nothing. Also, further, just because one doesn't have experience in something does not mean they can not partake in an argument or discussion about that as long as they are thoroughly educated. For example, I wasn't there when Stalin rose to power, but I could certain describe much of what happened, what living conditions were like, and the lasting effects of his legacy to the extent of my knowledge. Would someone who lived under Stalin have their perspective to share, perhaps countering(or reinforcing!) my points? Certainly, but that is the purpose of a debate or discussion, mutual understanding. That is what I believe, along with sharing our opinions on the matter, is the point of this thread, yes?

When will you learn this is not a valid form of argument. You were merely damaging the arguments of others on your side, not helping them. Just food for thought.

An argument has a conclusion. I was making an observation.

Zendric said It indeed would be nice if one could target for non-lethality in all cases, but it doesn't always turn out that way. I don't know if this officer was an incredible marksman, or only attended the required departmental training shoots, but in either case you have to think of aiming a firearm, especially a handgun in an adrenaline filled scenario, as a cone of fire. The slightest twitch, from a shaky hand to your heart pumping blood through your hands, can angle the barrel a couple degrees in any direction from where you are aiming at, and over a distance even as short as 30 feet it can matter, throwing the bullet off many inches. That's why you aim AT the target in general, not at the target's _____, so you can guarantee that you hit the target somewhere and stop them.

Good points, there's not really much I can offer in response to that.

Imperfectionist said Also, I will accept your opinions on how difficult it is to shoot a gun (in Canada, Germany, Niger or otherwise) once you've both joined the police and gone through basic firearm training.

Have you gone through basic training? I have just as much reason to believe you don't as you do that I don't at the moment.
Plus, if debates like this could only be limited to cops there really wouldn't be much point in these debates at all.

Having basic training be needed before weighing in on the actual case? Obviously, police cases should never be tampered by novices. But an online discussion/debate that in no way will effect the actual outcome of the case? It's an unnecessary pre-requisite

So Boerd said An argument has a conclusion. I was making an observation.

Did you observe a lack of training in his life?
Did you observe his records and find nothing indicating such experience?

If not what you made wasn't an observation but a remark.

Hellis said
The kid who got shot

That "kid" was 18. That "kid" was an adult.

That "kid" is guilty of smoking pot, regardless of the state's law still remains a federal crime. That "kid" is guilty of strong arm robbery. That "kid" is guilty of assaulting a police officer. That "kid" is guilty of trying to take a police officer's gun. That "kid" was a useless piece of trash who deserved to die.

All the people looting don't care about the black getting shot by a white cop all they care about is stealing and using the black guy's death as an excuse.

As I said, Gwazi, I'm not weighing in on the case. Just on the "shoot to wound" problem. I'm glad that it has been (basically) resolved.

The cop has a broken eye socket and the kid has a laceration on his hand consistent with slide bite. The case is pretty settled too.

For those who have not heard there has been another shooting in the St. Louis area with a man shot and killed by cops.

Warning: The following video depicts a man being shot and killed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ta2-7QJM78&bpctr=1408732428

For those who do not wish to watch, the video depicts Kajieme Powell, a 25 year old man who had just performed a robbery with the apparent intent of drawing police to his location and had his friend tape the encounter. When the police arrived they exited with guns draw at which point Powell drew a knife and walked towards them exclaiming "Shoot me." The cops told him to get back repeatedly, however, he did not comply and after closing to within a few feet both cops began firing with approximately ten shots being in rapid succession at close range killing Powell.