How are cops supposed to know if their attacker is armed or not?

[Sonny Clark]

Whether or not he actually attacked the officer is a matter of debate. Some witnesses says no, some say yes. There's no video to prove one way or the other.

That's why we have a grand jury system PLUS the Attorney General of United States review the evidence.

I ask again, would you be willing to bet your life on the paycheck a small city cop brings home?

Not enough money in the world for me to be a cop. They know what the job is going in.

Agreed, they know that they are not expected to die if they can instead, shoot the perp attempting to kill them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

So where's your retraction on four shot in Ferguson in one month?

I've never said anything about four being shot.

 

[Sonny Clark]

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

I promise you I could kill you long before back up arrived and be long gone.
And do you really think MB or anyone trying to avoid police are going to run down the street so you could follow them in a car?

Was it really that important for him to be dead right then? The town isn't that big. Cops would have easily rounded him up even if it took a day or two to do it.

So who's to say MB wouldnt go out and kill someone in the meantime?
MB is responsible for his own death.

His history didn't indicate he was more likely than anyone else to kill anyone

He attacked a cop.

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That's why we have a grand jury system PLUS the Attorney General of United States review the evidence.

I ask again, would you be willing to bet your life on the paycheck a small city cop brings home?

Not enough money in the world for me to be a cop. They know what the job is going in.

Agreed, they know that they are not expected to die if they can instead, shoot the perp attempting to kill them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

So where's your retraction on four shot in Ferguson in one month?

I've never said anything about four being shot.

My bad,that was intended for the poodle.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So poodle where is your retraction?

 

[Sonny Clark]

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

I promise you I could kill you long before back up arrived and be long gone.
And do you really think MB or anyone trying to avoid police are going to run down the street so you could follow them in a car?

They knew who he was. They could've found him in a small town. He wasn't headed to the bus station to get out of town.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

So now the cop is judge, jury, and executioner? I believe most cops are probably good, but I'm not naïve enough to think more than a few aren't. With the power given to them, they should be held to a higher standard than others.

No, Michael Brown served as his own judge when he disobeyed a lawful order AND attact the officer doing his job.

Would you allow your own death for a paycheck?

Whether or not he actually attacked the officer is a matter of debate. Some witnesses says no, some say yes. There's no video to prove one way or the other.

That's why we have a grand jury system PLUS the Attorney General of United States review the evidence.

I ask again, would you be willing to bet your life on the paycheck a small city cop brings home?

They went by the story the cop told. They said in public that witnesses lied. The dead man couldn't give his side and there were no videos to back up either side. I wouldn't be stupid enough to put my life on the line over a few stolen cigars. That was dumb to start with.

 

[Pop23]

No, Michael Brown served as his own judge when he disobeyed a lawful order AND attact the officer doing his job.

Would you allow your own death for a paycheck?

Whether or not he actually attacked the officer is a matter of debate. Some witnesses says no, some say yes. There's no video to prove one way or the other.

That's why we have a grand jury system PLUS the Attorney General of United States review the evidence.

I ask again, would you be willing to bet your life on the paycheck a small city cop brings home?

Not enough money in the world for me to be a cop. They know what the job is going in.

Agreed, they know that they are not expected to die if they can instead, shoot the perp attempting to kill them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

Until the cop could search the perp, especially after the perp assaulted him, he would assume the perp, as the Attorney General concurred, was coming back to inflict either death, or at a minimum, serious bodily injury (which can result in long term impairment and/or death).

Why would you allow that for the pay of a small city paycheck?

 

[Sonny Clark]

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

None of which saves you if the perp has a gun. Which, by the way, can't be determined if the perp refuses to submit to a search.

As a last resort, yes, pull your weapon. There were no account where is was the last resort. Only the cops word because the other party is dead. And, no videos to support either side.

 

[Pop23]

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

So now the cop is judge, jury, and executioner? I believe most cops are probably good, but I'm not naïve enough to think more than a few aren't. With the power given to them, they should be held to a higher standard than others.

No, Michael Brown served as his own judge when he disobeyed a lawful order AND attact the officer doing his job.

Would you allow your own death for a paycheck?

Whether or not he actually attacked the officer is a matter of debate. Some witnesses says no, some say yes. There's no video to prove one way or the other.

That's why we have a grand jury system PLUS the Attorney General of United States review the evidence.

I ask again, would you be willing to bet your life on the paycheck a small city cop brings home?

They went by the story the cop told. They said in public that witnesses lied. The dead man couldn't give his side and there were no videos to back up either side. I wouldn't be stupid enough to put my life on the line over a few stolen cigars. That was dumb to start with.

You wouldn't. This is not about you of course. Obviously MB would and did

 

[Sonny Clark]

Whether or not he actually attacked the officer is a matter of debate. Some witnesses says no, some say yes. There's no video to prove one way or the other.

That's why we have a grand jury system PLUS the Attorney General of United States review the evidence.

I ask again, would you be willing to bet your life on the paycheck a small city cop brings home?

Not enough money in the world for me to be a cop. They know what the job is going in.

Agreed, they know that they are not expected to die if they can instead, shoot the perp attempting to kill them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

Until the cop could search the perp, especially after the perp assaulted him, he would assume the perp, as the Attorney General concurred, was coming back to inflict either death, or at a minimum, serious bodily injury (which can result in long term impairment and/or death).

Why would you allow that for the pay of a small city paycheck?

So the cops says. Other eye witness accounts differ greatly.

 

[Pop23]

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

None of which saves you if the perp has a gun. Which, by the way, can't be determined if the perp refuses to submit to a search.

As a last resort, yes, pull your weapon. There were no account where is was the last resort. Only the cops word because the other party is dead. And, no videos to support either side.

No video is required by law.

 

[Sonny Clark]

So now the cop is judge, jury, and executioner? I believe most cops are probably good, but I'm not naïve enough to think more than a few aren't. With the power given to them, they should be held to a higher standard than others.

No, Michael Brown served as his own judge when he disobeyed a lawful order AND attact the officer doing his job.

Would you allow your own death for a paycheck?

Whether or not he actually attacked the officer is a matter of debate. Some witnesses says no, some say yes. There's no video to prove one way or the other.

That's why we have a grand jury system PLUS the Attorney General of United States review the evidence.

I ask again, would you be willing to bet your life on the paycheck a small city cop brings home?

They went by the story the cop told. They said in public that witnesses lied. The dead man couldn't give his side and there were no videos to back up either side. I wouldn't be stupid enough to put my life on the line over a few stolen cigars. That was dumb to start with.

You wouldn't. This is not about you of course. Obviously MB would and did

Obviously, the only story used to clear the cop was the cop's story. MB was dead and couldn't give his side of the story. he never has that chance.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

None of which saves you if the perp has a gun. Which, by the way, can't be determined if the perp refuses to submit to a search.

As a last resort, yes, pull your weapon. There were no account where is was the last resort. Only the cops word because the other party is dead. And, no videos to support either side.

No video is required by law.

Exactly, That's exactly why the cop got off free. His story was the only one used and there was no video to dispute the cop's story.

 

[Pop23]

That's why we have a grand jury system PLUS the Attorney General of United States review the evidence.

I ask again, would you be willing to bet your life on the paycheck a small city cop brings home?

Not enough money in the world for me to be a cop. They know what the job is going in.

Agreed, they know that they are not expected to die if they can instead, shoot the perp attempting to kill them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

Until the cop could search the perp, especially after the perp assaulted him, he would assume the perp, as the Attorney General concurred, was coming back to inflict either death, or at a minimum, serious bodily injury (which can result in long term impairment and/or death).

Why would you allow that for the pay of a small city paycheck?

So the cops says. Other eye witness accounts differ greatly.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

 

[Pop23]

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

None of which saves you if the perp has a gun. Which, by the way, can't be determined if the perp refuses to submit to a search.

As a last resort, yes, pull your weapon. There were no account where is was the last resort. Only the cops word because the other party is dead. And, no videos to support either side.

No video is required by law.

Exactly, That's exactly why the cop got off free. His story was the only one used and there was no video to dispute the cop's story.

No, you're wrong. Eyewitnesses backed by forensics backed him up.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Not enough money in the world for me to be a cop. They know what the job is going in.

Agreed, they know that they are not expected to die if they can instead, shoot the perp attempting to kill them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

Until the cop could search the perp, especially after the perp assaulted him, he would assume the perp, as the Attorney General concurred, was coming back to inflict either death, or at a minimum, serious bodily injury (which can result in long term impairment and/or death).

Why would you allow that for the pay of a small city paycheck?

So the cops says. Other eye witness accounts differ greatly.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

 

[Sonny Clark]

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

None of which saves you if the perp has a gun. Which, by the way, can't be determined if the perp refuses to submit to a search.

As a last resort, yes, pull your weapon. There were no account where is was the last resort. Only the cops word because the other party is dead. And, no videos to support either side.

No video is required by law.

Exactly, That's exactly why the cop got off free. His story was the only one used and there was no video to dispute the cop's story.

No, you're wrong. Eyewitnesses backed by forensics backed him up.

Yes, the selected witnesses used by one law agency in it's investigation of another law agency member. See anything wrong with investigating oneself?

 

[Pop23]

I promise you I could kill you long before back up arrived and be long gone.
And do you really think MB or anyone trying to avoid police are going to run down the street so you could follow them in a car?

Was it really that important for him to be dead right then? The town isn't that big. Cops would have easily rounded him up even if it took a day or two to do it.

So who's to say MB wouldnt go out and kill someone in the meantime?
MB is responsible for his own death.

His history didn't indicate he was more likely than anyone else to kill anyone

He attacked a cop.

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

Of course only one side can.

Agreed, they know that they are not expected to die if they can instead, shoot the perp attempting to kill them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

Until the cop could search the perp, especially after the perp assaulted him, he would assume the perp, as the Attorney General concurred, was coming back to inflict either death, or at a minimum, serious bodily injury (which can result in long term impairment and/or death).

Why would you allow that for the pay of a small city paycheck?

So the cops says. Other eye witness accounts differ greatly.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

 

[Hossfly]

Every situation is different. A cop should use a gun only as a last resort before he is overwhelmed, incapacitated or disarmed.

If a 300 pounder like michael brown is charging you, are you gonna hold fire till he's on top of you? THINK

I should have stressed the word, before. That should be sufficient. In your example I would hold fire until he was close enough to get powder burns.

Have you ever heard of the 21 foot rule?

I probably have heard of it. I don't remember exactly.

 

[BULLDOG]

Agreed, they know that they are not expected to die if they can instead, shoot the perp attempting to kill them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

Until the cop could search the perp, especially after the perp assaulted him, he would assume the perp, as the Attorney General concurred, was coming back to inflict either death, or at a minimum, serious bodily injury (which can result in long term impairment and/or death).

Why would you allow that for the pay of a small city paycheck?

So the cops says. Other eye witness accounts differ greatly.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

Like you, I had no faith in the original investigation. It was clear that they were intent on protecting the cop. However, the DOJ did another investigation, and they didn't have a vested interest in the outcome. They determined that the cop was acting in self defense, but didn't say much about whether the situation could have been prevented. I believe it could have.