[aguahombre]

"However, any semi-competent cop has no reason at all to bring himself into a situation where he has to kill Brown 150 feet away from his car."

This is the other big issue I mentioned. Neither of us was there, and cannot really know all which led to the final result. It is nearly impossible to examine the personality, mindset, training, experience, and people skills of the officer from the very start of this confrontation.

But, you can take it to the bank that Brown would not be dead after such confrontation with a majority of other individual officers. The first things said and done set a tone. Everything after that is different. Some officers' appearance and deameanor say "I shouldn't mess with this guy". Some have the skills to put anyone down with less than deadly force. Some might even retreat (not in the best interest of the public if he then harms someone else). Some have the skills to distract the meanest craziest people into compliance.

Officers under my command would get a diatribe similar to the above from me at one time or another, then could think about it in advance. But, when things happen, they happen fast. They have to go with whatever it takes, for self-preservation and the protection of others.

[mike777]

All of the above may be true but the issue is that so many people in the country believe the police are out to murder young men, not kill them, murder them. They don't respect the police or the process or system. As such it is easy to understand why people think attack the cop first before he murders me in cold blood.

As Aqua and others point out once a cop is justified in shooting he is shooting to kill, not maim or injury. Once you are in any kind of fight with a cop, the cop wants to win and make it the very worst day of your life. He is not looking for a fair and equal fight.

Many people don't like this, they do not want cops to shoot to kill or to fight or in a fight to make it your worst day of your life.

[awm]

I would like to think that any situation where a person with a gun kills an unarmed person, especially where the person with the gun effectively started the situation and has no signs of serious injuries afterwards, would result in at least a trial.

But recent evidence indicates that this is not true in the US, which I find extremely troubling.

[Winstonm]

To me the most unbelievable portion of the officer's account is the start of the confrontation. Asked politely by a policeman to get out of the middle of the street, an 18-year-old, just after stealing merchandise from a convenience store, becomes belligerent and physically attacks an officer through the window of his patrol car?

That strains credulity to the max.

What sounds the most plausible to me is the account given by the friend of the victim, that the policeman approached in a bullying and superior manner and he first grabbed the victim - starting a macho confrontation that ended in death.

In his testimony, the officer is trying to make himself look good and CYA - as we all most likely would. Unfortunately, the victim cannot give his side of the story.

I doubt the policeman is legally guilty - unless macho cop bullying is a crime. No doubt the youth made a mistake in fighting back. Civil disobedience comes with a price - this time it was too high.

[aguahombre]

Winstonm, on 2014-November-26, 12:01, said:

To me the most unbelievable portion of the officer's account is the start of the confrontation. Asked politely by a policeman to get out of the middle of the street, an 18-year-old, just after stealing merchandise from a convenience store, becomes belligerent and physically attacks an officer through the window of his patrol car?

That strains credulity to the max.

Actually, it doesn't strain credulity that it started that way. If it did, it would have been a stupid tactic, prompting even the most ignorant of suspects to believe he ---not the officer --- was in control of the situation at that point. It would be difficult to switch gears from there (oops pun not intended), for either the officer or for Brown. You just don't remain in your vehicle and expect to be in charge of anything.

It seems entirely possible that both accounts are somewhat accurate, but that the witness was unaware that the real first encounter was while the officer was still in his car.

[Winstonm]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-26, 12:44, said:

Actually, it doesn't strain credulity that it started that way. If it did, it would have been a stupid tactic, prompting even the most ignorant of suspects to believe he ---not the officer --- was in control of the situation at that point. It would be difficult to switch gears from there (oops pun not intended), for either the officer or for Brown. You just don't remain in your vehicle and expect to be in charge of anything.

It seems entirely possible that both accounts are somewhat accurate, but that the witness was unaware that the real first encounter was while the officer was still in his car.

I think this quote from Vox.com sums up how I see it:

Quote

But where Wilson's account presents Brown as completely irrational and borderline suicidal, Johnson's account is more recognizable. It isn't a blameless, kindly beat cop who gets set upon by a rampaging Michael Brown. And nor is it a blameless, kindly Michael Brown who gets set upon by a cold-blooded murderer with a badge.

It's a cop who feels provoked by these two young black men who won't get out of the street, and who tries to teach them a lesson, to put them in their place. His actions escalate the situation, and then the adrenaline floods, and then there's a struggle, and the situation escalates, and escalates, and escalates, and then Darren Wilson shoots Michael Brown and Michael Brown dies.

Neither party was totally innocent and everyone involved (including Johnson) tells the tale putting a spin on it that places themselves in the best possible light.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2014-November-26, 06:56, said:

I appreciate the above response from KenR, it is sort of what I would expect but, in my case, this is based on virtually no experience.

As to the feds, I think, again based on my vast lack of direct experience, that it goes something like this:

Federal prosecution of Wilson won't happen. To prosecute him, they would have to make a convincing case that he intended to vilate Brwon's civil rights. If Wilson just lost his head through fear, that would not be enough for a case under federal civil rights law.

The feds are, I understand, also looking at the whole structure. I imagine this includes the grand jury presentation. I am not sure what they might do if they came to decide that the grand jury presentation was deceptively staged to get Wilson off, but in theory I suppose that they could do this. Even if so, I doubt that they could successfully prosecute Wilson. Unlike KenR, and maybe other posters, my legal training is zip. But I think that the feds would have to show some planned violation of Brown's civil rights.


The facts matter here. I don't see what the point would be of indicting Wilson if the facts support his version of events. The grand jury apparently decided that they did. It's fair to ask if the prosecutor, or State's Attorney, or whatever he was, intentionally scuttled this. I doubt that is true, but it is fair to ask if it is true. Lacking that, I think the case is over.

If the feds think the presentation was "deceptively staged" they'd have to go after whoever staged it, not Wilson. IOW, this would be separate from any alleged violation of civil rights by Wilson. IMO, of course.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-26, 14:08, said:

If the feds think the presentation was "deceptively staged" they'd have to go after whoever staged it, not Wilson. IOW, this would be separate from any alleged violation of civil rights by Wilson. IMO, of course.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say. The case against Wilson, I think, is over.

[blackshoe]

Not entirely germane to Ferguson, but recent posts here reminded me of an old case from San Diego involving a botched drug raid and a dead civilian whose only connection with drugs was that his son, who he had disowned, was a dealer. In searching the web for info on that case to supplement my memory, I found this report from the Cato Institute. Some readers might find it interesting (and scary) as I did.

I think it's time we seriously scaled back all this SWAT BS, whatever police departments' excuses are for "needing" them.

[mike777]

With 2000 army troops with rifles and over a 1000 cops in Ferguson it may be difficult to convince cops they need to disarm Swat.

[Cthulhu D]

mike777, on 2014-November-26, 17:30, said:

With 2000 army troops with rifles and over a 1000 cops in Ferguson it may be difficult to convince cops they need to disarm Swat.

Sure, but that is another symptom of the problem. US cops kill unarmed black dudes at a ridiculous rate. They just shot a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in a park:

http://www.cleveland...cer_shot_1.html

Other countries manage to not have this happen, so logically the US can not kill a bunch of minorities as well.

[mike777]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-26, 20:51, said:

Sure, but that is another symptom of the problem. US cops kill unarmed black dudes at a ridiculous rate. They just shot a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in a park:

http://www.cleveland...cer_shot_1.html

Other countries manage to not have this happen, so logically the US can not kill a bunch of minorities as well.

good point it would be interesting to compare the USA cop rate of killing unarmed black dudes with Ausi's cop rate of killing unarmed black dudes.

Not sure why Ausi's rate might be lower unless the Ausi cops don't want to murder them as USA cops are accused of doing. Perhaps your court justice system is not rigged as many believe here in america

[Cthulhu D]

mike777, on 2014-November-26, 21:55, said:

good point it would be interesting to compare the USA cop rate of killing unarmed black dudes with Ausi's cop rate of killing unarmed black dudes.

Not sure why Ausi's rate might be lower unless the Ausi cops don't want to murder them as USA cops are accused of doing. Perhaps your court justice system is not rigged as many believe here in america

Unfortunately the US does not tabulate the killings in a useful way. There are some numbers for justifitable homocides (~400-450 a year). Total killings by police are estimated at 750-1000 a year. Australia records all people killed by police with firearms, and has tabulated it here: http://www.aic.gov.a...1-40/rip34.html

Taking the lower 'Justifiable Homocides' number not 'all shootings by police' - so this comparison is in the US's favour. This runs at over 400 a year, so averaging the Australia rate since 2008, we kill 64 for every 400 killed by police in the US - best case estimate. Atlenatively, a US cop is 6 times more likely to kill a suspect with a firearm than an Australia cop.

That is a best case estimate - if we use the 750 number (which is more comparable), that jumps to 12 times more likely.

Overall, US police are much more likely to kill civilians than Australian police - or UK police, or German police or basically police anywhere else in the OECD.

[mike777]

Good points.

One concern is looking at only OECD will introduce many biases and issues into the stats compared with looking at the entire world.

another way to look at your numbers is just simply the usa is better, much better at murder and getting away with it than other countries in OECD. Hard to say with your numbers.

For example in reading about Italy and murders it came across it is much easier to murder and get away with it than in the USA. Not sure about aust.


I note in my old hometown of Chicago only roughly 30% of the murders have lead to conviction and much jail time if any in the last few years. My neighborhood where I grew up of Pullman/Roseland may be worse.

Side note I lived for many years in the close in suburb of OAK Park...think Hemingway and Frank L Wright. The Chicago mob boss lived in a simple plain house a few blocks away. His murder has never been solved. He was killed in his basement.

btw2 My sister for many years has lived just outside of a town called Melbourne, not sure what the murder rate is there.

[Cthulhu D]

mike777, on 2014-November-27, 00:29, said:

btw2 My sister for many years has lived just outside of a town called Melbourne, not sure what the murder rate is there.

State of Victoria (of which Melbourne is the capital): 2.9 per 100,000
United States: 4.7 per 100,000

Overall violent crime rate (crimes against the person), is much lower than the US.

Quote

One concern is looking at only OECD will introduce many biases and issues into the stats compared with looking at the entire world.

another way to look at your numbers is just simply the usa is better, much better at murder and getting away with it than other countries in OECD. Hard to say with your numbers.

It's completely pointless looking at the rest of the world. If it's not a developed country with a 'real' police force, how can we make a comparision about police shootings?

Also, the numbers in my previous are for number of fatal shootings by police of civilians. Your " much better at murder and getting away with it" seems ridiculous, unless you think US police are intentionally murdering civilians.

[WellSpyder]

PassedOut, on 2014-November-25, 22:03, said:

I was told that I would face prosecution myself if I discussed any aspect of what had transpired there with anyone, including my wife.

I hope BBO forum members don't come under the category "anyone" - or do we risk losing your contributions when you lose your liberty for sharing your interesting experience with us?

[mike777]

"Also, the numbers in my previous are for number of fatal shootings by police of civilians. Your " much better at murder and getting away with it" seems ridiculous, unless you think US police are intentionally murdering civilian"


that is what Ferguson and the protests are all about, police in this case the Officer murdered Mr. Brown in cold blooded murder. That is what the eyewitnesses and protesters are saying all around the country. They believe the police are murdering young men. that is what the protesters even in my little town are claiming. They believe the grand jury and the justice system is rigged. The community does not trust the police or the system or process. That is the whole theme.


Just be clear the theme in Ferguson is not shooting by police of civilians. That may be where some confusion is in discussing other countries and why we need to include all countries not just developed countries when comparing the real world. If a country has a pretend police force it is important to include them and compare them to real police forces whatever the heck that means.

[kenberg]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-27, 01:09, said:

State of Victoria (of which Melbourne is the capital): 2.9 per 100,000
United States: 4.7 per 100,000

Overall violent crime rate (crimes against the person), is much lower than the US.



It's completely pointless looking at the rest of the world. If it's not a developed country with a 'real' police force, how can we make a comparision about police shootings?

Also, the numbers in my previous are for number of fatal shootings by police of civilians. Your " much better at murder and getting away with it" seems ridiculous, unless you think US police are intentionally murdering civilians.

According to http://www.fbi.gov/a...e_2012-2013.xls
the rate has droped from 4.7 (in 2012) per 100,000 to 4.5 per 100,000 (2013). Maybe not much of a drop, but movement in the right direction. Of course I would like to see it be 0. But I am not exactly shaking with fear, and therein lies the problem. There is an old book: We only kill each other, The Life and Times of Bugsy Siegle. This of course was in reference to the mafia, but the point remains. Often people are killed by someone they know. Often these eaople are known to be not very good people. Living life as I do, the chance of me being intentionally killed by someone is vanishingly small. As a citizen, I would like to see fewer people gunned down. I also would like a cure for cancer and safer highways. These latter two items are surely more of a threat to me personally. Everyone (more or less) knows someone who has died, rather excruciatingly, from cancer. Most of us know someone, maybe not closely, who died in a car accident. But murder? Some sixty years ago, the father of a friend of a friend was shot in his home. He was mob connected. I can't think of anyone I know who was gunned down in a street incident. (Oops, see below for a distant example of one such, but largely the statement is correct.)

It is usually easier to see a problem clearly when you have direct experience with it. I have had very little. Sometime back, the daughter of a friend was working in a jewelry store. A man came in with a gun to rob the place. She saw an opportunity, kneed him in the balls, and took his gun. Obviously this could have been very bad, but it turned out ok. And there was this guy, I never actually met him, that was caught more than once using drugs, enough to be facing serious time. The police decided to use him as bait to catch some other druggies and got him killed. So, on the periphery, I am aware of some things. But mostly when I discuss matters such as this, my experience is too meager to be a useful guide.

In the same reference on murder rates, I see that in Minnesota, where I grew up, it was 1.8 and 2.1 out of 100,000 in 2012 and 2013 respectively. So if I get worried, I don't have to move to Victoria, I can just move back to Minnesota where it is safer. But the family, mostly, are here so I will live with the danger.

[PassedOut]

WellSpyder, on 2014-November-27, 05:35, said:

PassedOut, on 2014-November-25, 22:03, said:

I was told that I would face prosecution myself if I discussed any aspect of what had transpired there with anyone, including my wife.

I hope BBO forum members don't come under the category "anyone" - or do we risk losing your contributions when you lose your liberty for sharing your interesting experience with us?

I expect that the warning (if it really had any legal basis from the start -- I still have very little knowledge of these matters) expired with the final verdict of not guilty.

I do remember being quite surprised that the grand jury actually indicted the guy, however much I disliked him. I suspected (wrongly, it turned out) that there was some other evidence that I didn't know about. Of course, that was before I knew that even a ham sandwich could be indicted...

My concern going into the grand jury was that the real object was not the (preposterous) alleged threat against the president, but other matters such as the mechanics of how draft-age men were able to escape to Canada. But no, it was just that ridiculous threat and, for some reason, my attorney.

[kenberg]

There were various absurdities back then . I recall a story in the newspaper about a war protester saying something like "Johnson's war makes me want to puke". He was arrested. The claim was that if enough people puked on the president it could kill him. This was the way it was reported, although it would not surprise me to learn that again there was some other evidence of something more substantial tan puking. But maybe not. Those were crazy times all around.