Importance of Mike Brown's robbery video

[Jackson]

The video clearly shows Mike's attitude and it can clearly show why he would turn and attack the officer. In the video he 1st shoved the clerk into a store display and began walking out. When the clerk apparently said something he turned back in to attack the clerk again. The clerk backed away so he turned back and went outside the store. When the officer first confronted him Mike assaulted the officer. Mike them started walking away but when the officer got out of the car and told him to freeze could there be any doubt that he would attack the officer again just like he did the clerk in the store.

That's not what I saw in the video. I saw the little old guy get up in the big young guy's face. Then the big guy "barely" touched the shoulder of the little guy. In the video you can see the little guy taking a step back an "brushing" up against the loose rack. This happens when you take a step back into light weight racks. They don't support you and you don't have a place to put your feet so you stumble. Then the big guy lets the little guy off and starts walking out. The little guy looks like he's saying something and the bid guy turns around, "flexes" and takes one step toward the little guy.

What is clear to me from your reaction to this video is that you need to grow a pair.

Didn't you mean to start your post with "I saw the big young guy say to the old guy, "Sir, you don't mind if I take the cigars, do you?"

Then he "barely touched the shoulder of the little guy and the little guy stepped back and hit that gosh darn flimsy loose light weight rack that don't support you and then you stumble. And the big guy, as sweet as he is lets the little guy off and start walking out. Then the little guy looks like he's saying something and the big guy turns around, "flexes" and takes one step towards the little guy, and tells him to have a Great Day!

What a Gentle Giant I tell ya! They should all be that sweet, RKM.

Yeah that story works to. Just don't tell me the kid beat the crap out of the old man cause that's not in the video.

No he didn't beat the crap out of the guy, but he was certainly not Mr. Nice Guy. He was the intimidator, he shoved they guy and ROBBED the store,

 

[RKMBrown]

He's not scary to me. Shoot him dead in the street for being a bully? Sigh.

That's not why he got killed.

If not bullying why did the cop kill the teen?

Self defense, resisting arrest after committing a felony, assaulting a police officer...

So the officer killed the unarmed teen in self defense. I see. How many shots did it take again for him to kill the teen? hmmm... I'm not convinced. Sounds more like anger than self defense. I hunt and I've never even shot an animal half a dozen times.

If I may.

The six shot thing is a red herring. Would it really have mattered if one shot killed him, or if the sixth one did? The only way it's important is if the first shot DID kill him and the cop just went berserk. But that isn't what happend.

Instead, what you seen here is known as an "adrenaline dump" The decision is made to fire and 6 rounds are fired in about 10 seconds. Sometimes whole magazines are emptied.

Is this because of bad training? Yes and no. Yes, ideally you would like your law enforcement officers to be able to control their adrenaline during shootings, but in truth the only way to learn that skill is to be involved in shootings. That isn't a skill that is learned at a firing range. The military works very hard to make their training as realistic as possible, but even soldiers take months of combat to get over that adrenaline dump.

If you've never been in a shooting, you would of course have no idea what I'm referring to, and sorry but animals don't count. A human is an entirely different matter.

Yes a human is an entirely different matter that was my point. Shooting an unarmed teen half a dozen times is a red herring? Talk about a straw-man.

Sir, arguing over the number of shots that were fired is a red herring, because it has been proven over and over and over again that without proper training an adrenaline dump CAN cause a person to fire more rounds than they even realized. An explanation of the fight or flight chemical processes that take place in a fight does not excuse him firing half a dozen times in the fight. Football players encounter said adrenaline rush all the time, but we don't see a whole lot of killings on the football field do we?

I would think you would be pleases that police don't go around shooting so many people that they have learned to control their adrenaline while doing so. Well, thanks I guess for agreeing with me that police don't need to go around and usually don't go around shooting people. My point, is the same as yours, this policeman did not appear to have control.

My point in saying that a human is different than an animal was that shooting an animal does NOT cause the same physical reactions in a human being that shooting another human being does. This is why you see things when a serial killer is caught and you start finding out about his childhood and such they almost always abused animals and gradually moved up to killing humans, because killing the animals didn't give them the same physical reactions (in a serial killers case completely bad of course) that killing a human does.
You are going back and forth here with your argument. Yes, depending on the person and differences between his own respect for humans and animals the effect may be different or the same for that person.

in blue

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

He's not scary to me. Shoot him dead in the street for being a bully? Sigh.

That's not why he got killed.

If not bullying why did the cop kill the teen?

Self defense, resisting arrest after committing a felony, assaulting a police officer...

So the officer killed the unarmed teen in self defense. I see. How many shots did it take again for him to kill the teen? hmmm... I'm not convinced. Sounds more like anger than self defense. I hunt and I've never even shot an animal half a dozen times.

If I may.

The six shot thing is a red herring. Would it really have mattered if one shot killed him, or if the sixth one did? The only way it's important is if the first shot DID kill him and the cop just went berserk. But that isn't what happend.

Instead, what you seen here is known as an "adrenaline dump" The decision is made to fire and 6 rounds are fired in about 10 seconds. Sometimes whole magazines are emptied.

Is this because of bad training? Yes and no. Yes, ideally you would like your law enforcement officers to be able to control their adrenaline during shootings, but in truth the only way to learn that skill is to be involved in shootings. That isn't a skill that is learned at a firing range. The military works very hard to make their training as realistic as possible, but even soldiers take months of combat to get over that adrenaline dump.

If you've never been in a shooting, you would of course have no idea what I'm referring to, and sorry but animals don't count. A human is an entirely different matter.

Yes a human is an entirely different matter that was my point. Shooting an unarmed teen half a dozen times is a red herring? Talk about a straw-man.

Sir, arguing over the number of shots that were fired is a red herring, because it has been proven over and over and over again that without proper training an adrenaline dump CAN cause a person to fire more rounds than they even realized. An explanation of the fight or flight chemical processes that take place in a fight does not excuse him firing half a dozen times in the fight. Football players encounter said adrenaline rush all the time, but we don't see a whole lot of killings on the football field do we?

I would think you would be pleases that police don't go around shooting so many people that they have learned to control their adrenaline while doing so. Well, thanks I guess for agreeing with me that police don't need to go around and usually don't go around shooting people. My point, is the same as yours, this policeman did not appear to have control.

My point in saying that a human is different than an animal was that shooting an animal does NOT cause the same physical reactions in a human being that shooting another human being does. This is why you see things when a serial killer is caught and you start finding out about his childhood and such they almost always abused animals and gradually moved up to killing humans, because killing the animals didn't give them the same physical reactions (in a serial killers case completely bad of course) that killing a human does.
You are going back and forth here with your argument. Yes, depending on the person and differences between his own respect for humans and animals the effect may be different or the same for that person.

in blue

No offense, but when you start comparing football players to LEOs shooting anther person, I know you're out of your depth in a conversation. Have a nice day.

 

[Jackson]

He's not scary to me. Shoot him dead in the street for being a bully? Sigh.

That's not why he got killed.

If not bullying why did the cop kill the teen?

Self defense, resisting arrest after committing a felony, assaulting a police officer...

So the officer killed the unarmed teen in self defense. I see. How many shots did it take again for him to kill the teen? hmmm... I'm not convinced. Sounds more like anger than self defense. I hunt and I've never even shot an animal half a dozen times.

If I may.

The six shot thing is a red herring. Would it really have mattered if one shot killed him, or if the sixth one did? The only way it's important is if the first shot DID kill him and the cop just went berserk. But that isn't what happend.

Instead, what you seen here is known as an "adrenaline dump" The decision is made to fire and 6 rounds are fired in about 10 seconds. Sometimes whole magazines are emptied.

Is this because of bad training? Yes and no. Yes, ideally you would like your law enforcement officers to be able to control their adrenaline during shootings, but in truth the only way to learn that skill is to be involved in shootings. That isn't a skill that is learned at a firing range. The military works very hard to make their training as realistic as possible, but even soldiers take months of combat to get over that adrenaline dump.

If you've never been in a shooting, you would of course have no idea what I'm referring to, and sorry but animals don't count. A human is an entirely different matter.

Yes a human is an entirely different matter that was my point. Shooting an unarmed teen half a dozen times is a red herring? Talk about a straw-man.

Sir, arguing over the number of shots that were fired is a red herring, because it has been proven over and over and over again that without proper training an adrenaline dump CAN cause a person to fire more rounds than they even realized. An explanation of the fight or flight chemical processes that take place in a fight does not excuse him firing half a dozen times in the fight. Football players encounter said adrenaline rush all the time, but we don't see a whole lot of killings on the football field do we? Since when are football players playing with their life on the line?

I would think you would be pleases that police don't go around shooting so many people that they have learned to control their adrenaline while doing so. Well, thanks I guess for agreeing with me that police don't need to go around and usually don't go around shooting people. My point, is the same as yours, this policeman did not appear to have control. You have forgotten that the officer may have had an injury that affected he eye sight.

My point in saying that a human is different than an animal was that shooting an animal does NOT cause the same physical reactions in a human being that shooting another human being does. This is why you see things when a serial killer is caught and you start finding out about his childhood and such they almost always abused animals and gradually moved up to killing humans, because killing the animals didn't give them the same physical reactions (in a serial killers case completely bad of course) that killing a human does.
You are going back and forth here with your argument. Yes, depending on the person and differences between his own respect for humans and animals the effect may be different or the same for that person. An officer is trained to use deadly force in certain conditions and a Grand Jury will determine if those conditions were met.

in blue

in red

 

[RKMBrown]

The video clearly shows Mike's attitude and it can clearly show why he would turn and attack the officer. In the video he 1st shoved the clerk into a store display and began walking out. When the clerk apparently said something he turned back in to attack the clerk again. The clerk backed away so he turned back and went outside the store. When the officer first confronted him Mike assaulted the officer. Mike them started walking away but when the officer got out of the car and told him to freeze could there be any doubt that he would attack the officer again just like he did the clerk in the store.

That's not what I saw in the video. I saw the little old guy get up in the big young guy's face. Then the big guy "barely" touched the shoulder of the little guy. In the video you can see the little guy taking a step back an "brushing" up against the loose rack. This happens when you take a step back into light weight racks. They don't support you and you don't have a place to put your feet so you stumble. Then the big guy lets the little guy off and starts walking out. The little guy looks like he's saying something and the bid guy turns around, "flexes" and takes one step toward the little guy.

What is clear to me from your reaction to this video is that you need to grow a pair.

Didn't you mean to start your post with "I saw the big young guy say to the old guy, "Sir, you don't mind if I take the cigars, do you?"

Then he "barely touched the shoulder of the little guy and the little guy stepped back and hit that gosh darn flimsy loose light weight rack that don't support you and then you stumble. And the big guy, as sweet as he is lets the little guy off and start walking out. Then the little guy looks like he's saying something and the big guy turns around, "flexes" and takes one step towards the little guy, and tells him to have a Great Day!

What a Gentle Giant I tell ya! They should all be that sweet, RKM.

Yeah that story works to. Just don't tell me the kid beat the crap out of the old man cause that's not in the video.

No he didn't beat the crap out of the guy, but he was certainly not Mr. Nice Guy. He was the intimidator, he shoved they guy and ROBBED the store,

More like poked the guy... and he's merely accused of robbing the store of a few dollars worth of cigars. He's not intimidating to me.

 

[RKMBrown]

He's not scary to me. Shoot him dead in the street for being a bully? Sigh.

That's not why he got killed.

If not bullying why did the cop kill the teen?

Self defense, resisting arrest after committing a felony, assaulting a police officer...

So the officer killed the unarmed teen in self defense. I see. How many shots did it take again for him to kill the teen? hmmm... I'm not convinced. Sounds more like anger than self defense. I hunt and I've never even shot an animal half a dozen times.

If I may.

The six shot thing is a red herring. Would it really have mattered if one shot killed him, or if the sixth one did? The only way it's important is if the first shot DID kill him and the cop just went berserk. But that isn't what happend.

Instead, what you seen here is known as an "adrenaline dump" The decision is made to fire and 6 rounds are fired in about 10 seconds. Sometimes whole magazines are emptied.

Is this because of bad training? Yes and no. Yes, ideally you would like your law enforcement officers to be able to control their adrenaline during shootings, but in truth the only way to learn that skill is to be involved in shootings. That isn't a skill that is learned at a firing range. The military works very hard to make their training as realistic as possible, but even soldiers take months of combat to get over that adrenaline dump.

If you've never been in a shooting, you would of course have no idea what I'm referring to, and sorry but animals don't count. A human is an entirely different matter.

Yes a human is an entirely different matter that was my point. Shooting an unarmed teen half a dozen times is a red herring? Talk about a straw-man.

Sir, arguing over the number of shots that were fired is a red herring, because it has been proven over and over and over again that without proper training an adrenaline dump CAN cause a person to fire more rounds than they even realized. An explanation of the fight or flight chemical processes that take place in a fight does not excuse him firing half a dozen times in the fight. Football players encounter said adrenaline rush all the time, but we don't see a whole lot of killings on the football field do we?

I would think you would be pleases that police don't go around shooting so many people that they have learned to control their adrenaline while doing so. Well, thanks I guess for agreeing with me that police don't need to go around and usually don't go around shooting people. My point, is the same as yours, this policeman did not appear to have control.

My point in saying that a human is different than an animal was that shooting an animal does NOT cause the same physical reactions in a human being that shooting another human being does. This is why you see things when a serial killer is caught and you start finding out about his childhood and such they almost always abused animals and gradually moved up to killing humans, because killing the animals didn't give them the same physical reactions (in a serial killers case completely bad of course) that killing a human does.
You are going back and forth here with your argument. Yes, depending on the person and differences between his own respect for humans and animals the effect may be different or the same for that person.

in blue

No offense, but when you start comparing football players to LEOs shooting anther person, I know you're out of your depth in a conversation. Have a nice day.

My point was to the introduction of adrenaline as an excuse. Adrenaline is not unique to this situation. If humans were incapable of reason when armed and in a police situation, then I would be all for banning our cops from carrying guns.

 

[Meathead]

More like poked the guy... and he's merely accused of robbing the store of a few dollars worth of cigars. He's not intimidating to me.

Well said from your keyboard. You're a bit of a tool.

 

[RKMBrown]

He's not scary to me. Shoot him dead in the street for being a bully? Sigh.

That's not why he got killed.

If not bullying why did the cop kill the teen?

Self defense, resisting arrest after committing a felony, assaulting a police officer...

So the officer killed the unarmed teen in self defense. I see. How many shots did it take again for him to kill the teen? hmmm... I'm not convinced. Sounds more like anger than self defense. I hunt and I've never even shot an animal half a dozen times.

If I may.

The six shot thing is a red herring. Would it really have mattered if one shot killed him, or if the sixth one did? The only way it's important is if the first shot DID kill him and the cop just went berserk. But that isn't what happend.

Instead, what you seen here is known as an "adrenaline dump" The decision is made to fire and 6 rounds are fired in about 10 seconds. Sometimes whole magazines are emptied.

Is this because of bad training? Yes and no. Yes, ideally you would like your law enforcement officers to be able to control their adrenaline during shootings, but in truth the only way to learn that skill is to be involved in shootings. That isn't a skill that is learned at a firing range. The military works very hard to make their training as realistic as possible, but even soldiers take months of combat to get over that adrenaline dump.

If you've never been in a shooting, you would of course have no idea what I'm referring to, and sorry but animals don't count. A human is an entirely different matter.

Yes a human is an entirely different matter that was my point. Shooting an unarmed teen half a dozen times is a red herring? Talk about a straw-man.

Sir, arguing over the number of shots that were fired is a red herring, because it has been proven over and over and over again that without proper training an adrenaline dump CAN cause a person to fire more rounds than they even realized. An explanation of the fight or flight chemical processes that take place in a fight does not excuse him firing half a dozen times in the fight. Football players encounter said adrenaline rush all the time, but we don't see a whole lot of killings on the football field do we?

I would think you would be pleases that police don't go around shooting so many people that they have learned to control their adrenaline while doing so. Well, thanks I guess for agreeing with me that police don't need to go around and usually don't go around shooting people. My point, is the same as yours, this policeman did not appear to have control.

My point in saying that a human is different than an animal was that shooting an animal does NOT cause the same physical reactions in a human being that shooting another human being does. This is why you see things when a serial killer is caught and you start finding out about his childhood and such they almost always abused animals and gradually moved up to killing humans, because killing the animals didn't give them the same physical reactions (in a serial killers case completely bad of course) that killing a human does.
You are going back and forth here with your argument. Yes, depending on the person and differences between his own respect for humans and animals the effect may be different or the same for that person.

in blue

No offense, but when you start comparing football players to LEOs shooting anther person, I know you're out of your depth in a conversation. Have a nice day.

Your self aggrandizement certainly coincides with your white flag bravado.

 

[RKMBrown]

More like poked the guy... and he's merely accused of robbing the store of a few dollars worth of cigars. He's not intimidating to me.

Well said from your keyboard. You're a bit of a tool.

Why thank you.

 

[beagle9]

He's not scary to me. Shoot him dead in the street for being a bully? Sigh.

That's not why he got killed.

If not bullying why did the cop kill the teen?

Self defense, resisting arrest after committing a felony, assaulting a police officer...

So the officer killed the unarmed teen in self defense. I see. How many shots did it take again for him to kill the teen? hmmm... I'm not convinced. Sounds more like anger than self defense. I hunt and I've never even shot an animal half a dozen times.

If I may.

The six shot thing is a red herring. Would it really have mattered if one shot killed him, or if the sixth one did? The only way it's important is if the first shot DID kill him and the cop just went berserk. But that isn't what happend.

Instead, what you seen here is known as an "adrenaline dump" The decision is made to fire and 6 rounds are fired in about 10 seconds. Sometimes whole magazines are emptied.

Is this because of bad training? Yes and no. Yes, ideally you would like your law enforcement officers to be able to control their adrenaline during shootings, but in truth the only way to learn that skill is to be involved in shootings. That isn't a skill that is learned at a firing range. The military works very hard to make their training as realistic as possible, but even soldiers take months of combat to get over that adrenaline dump.

If you've never been in a shooting, you would of course have no idea what I'm referring to, and sorry but animals don't count. A human is an entirely different matter.

Yes a human is an entirely different matter that was my point. Shooting an unarmed teen half a dozen times is a red herring? Talk about a straw-man.

Sir, arguing over the number of shots that were fired is a red herring, because it has been proven over and over and over again that without proper training an adrenaline dump CAN cause a person to fire more rounds than they even realized. I would think you would be pleases that police don't go around shooting so many people that they have learned to control their adrenaline while doing so.

My point in saying that a human is different than an animal was that shooting an animal does NOT cause the same physical reactions in a human being that shooting another human being does. This is why you see things when a serial killer is caught and you start finding out about his childhood and such they almost always abused animals and gradually moved up to killing humans, because killing the animals didn't give them the same physical reactions (in a serial killers case completely bad of course) that killing a human does.

An angry man charging you is also an adrenaline dump that is born out of anger or rage. Now where the anger or rage came from is anyone's guess at this point. Like I said before though, that it may be that Brown could have had this anger stored up within him from the robbery or even before that in which caused him to commit the robbery in the first place. Now couple that with an officer of the law coming on scene after one has done something like that, well it's easy to see how it all may have escalated out of control from that point forward.

When discussing an adrenaline dump we are only talking about how it relates to firing a weapon. It causes many different things. Your eyes lose focus, you shake, you lose count of how many rounds you've fired, etc etc.

And there was virtually NOTHING that cop could do about it in the 10-20 seconds he took to go from making the decision to pull his weapon til the last shot was fired. You've either learned to control it or you haven't.

I agree, but what I am saying is that it is on both sides once the situation takes place or rather the perfect storm lines up and takes place between all parties involved. Hine sight is always 20/20 you see.

Oh I quite agree. The young man made a mistake and it is unfortunate that he paid for it with his life, but there is no reason to compound the situation by ruining this cop's life, well anymore than it already is.

Especially if he's innocent...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

He's not scary to me. Shoot him dead in the street for being a bully? Sigh.

That's not why he got killed.

If not bullying why did the cop kill the teen?

Self defense, resisting arrest after committing a felony, assaulting a police officer...

So the officer killed the unarmed teen in self defense. I see. How many shots did it take again for him to kill the teen? hmmm... I'm not convinced. Sounds more like anger than self defense. I hunt and I've never even shot an animal half a dozen times.

If I may.

The six shot thing is a red herring. Would it really have mattered if one shot killed him, or if the sixth one did? The only way it's important is if the first shot DID kill him and the cop just went berserk. But that isn't what happend.

Instead, what you seen here is known as an "adrenaline dump" The decision is made to fire and 6 rounds are fired in about 10 seconds. Sometimes whole magazines are emptied.

Is this because of bad training? Yes and no. Yes, ideally you would like your law enforcement officers to be able to control their adrenaline during shootings, but in truth the only way to learn that skill is to be involved in shootings. That isn't a skill that is learned at a firing range. The military works very hard to make their training as realistic as possible, but even soldiers take months of combat to get over that adrenaline dump.

If you've never been in a shooting, you would of course have no idea what I'm referring to, and sorry but animals don't count. A human is an entirely different matter.

Yes a human is an entirely different matter that was my point. Shooting an unarmed teen half a dozen times is a red herring? Talk about a straw-man.

Sir, arguing over the number of shots that were fired is a red herring, because it has been proven over and over and over again that without proper training an adrenaline dump CAN cause a person to fire more rounds than they even realized. An explanation of the fight or flight chemical processes that take place in a fight does not excuse him firing half a dozen times in the fight. Football players encounter said adrenaline rush all the time, but we don't see a whole lot of killings on the football field do we?

I would think you would be pleases that police don't go around shooting so many people that they have learned to control their adrenaline while doing so. Well, thanks I guess for agreeing with me that police don't need to go around and usually don't go around shooting people. My point, is the same as yours, this policeman did not appear to have control.

My point in saying that a human is different than an animal was that shooting an animal does NOT cause the same physical reactions in a human being that shooting another human being does. This is why you see things when a serial killer is caught and you start finding out about his childhood and such they almost always abused animals and gradually moved up to killing humans, because killing the animals didn't give them the same physical reactions (in a serial killers case completely bad of course) that killing a human does.
You are going back and forth here with your argument. Yes, depending on the person and differences between his own respect for humans and animals the effect may be different or the same for that person.

in blue

No offense, but when you start comparing football players to LEOs shooting anther person, I know you're out of your depth in a conversation. Have a nice day.

Your self aggrandizement certainly coincides with your white flag bravado.

Son, I'm a retired US Army Colonel. I've fought in 3 wars and shot at hundreds, if not thousands, of people. If you think me stating that I probably have a better understanding of the physical reactions involved in shooting another human being than a person who hunts deer and turkey is self aggrandizing than so be it; that isn't how I meant it.

There are opinions and there informed opinions, why people don't understand that some people have more experience in certain matters than they do is beyond me.

In any case, I meant no offense and apologize if I did so.

 

[RKMBrown]

Son, I'm a retired US Army Colonel. I've fought in 3 wars and shot at hundreds, if not thousands, of people. If you think me stating that I probably have a better understanding of the physical reactions involved in shooting another human being than a person who hunts deer and turkey is self aggrandizing than so be it; that isn't how I meant it.

There are opinions and there informed opinions, why people don't understand that some people have more experience in certain matters than they do is beyond me.

In any case, I meant no offense and apologize if I did so.

Let me be perfectly clear. I fully understand that my level of experience in civilian disturbances pales in comparison to what you have seen in your life. I applaud your service and formally bow to your experience in these matters as they pertain to the battlefield. Given your vastly superior experience in this matter, I respectfully withdraw my statement, it was a rude reactionary comment, esp. given that your statement was given from the perch of said vastly superior experience, and thus "justified." I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

To "re-frame" the argument, if there is one. Should we treat unarmed teens walking down the street as enemy combatants, if they throw a punch at a police officer. Said another way... what would happen if an MP killed an unarmed soldier with six bullets two to the head after receiving a punch from said soldier?

 

[Jackson]

Son, I'm a retired US Army Colonel. I've fought in 3 wars and shot at hundreds, if not thousands, of people. If you think me stating that I probably have a better understanding of the physical reactions involved in shooting another human being than a person who hunts deer and turkey is self aggrandizing than so be it; that isn't how I meant it.

There are opinions and there informed opinions, why people don't understand that some people have more experience in certain matters than they do is beyond me.

In any case, I meant no offense and apologize if I did so.

Let me be perfectly clear. I fully understand that my level of experience in civilian disturbances pales in comparison to what you have seen in your life. I applaud your service and formally bow to your experience in these matters as they pertain to the battlefield. Given your vastly superior experience in this matter, I respectfully withdraw my statement, it was a rude reactionary comment, esp. given that your statement was given from the perch of said vastly superior experience, and thus "justified." I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

To "re-frame" the argument, if there is one. Should we treat unarmed teens walking down the street as enemy combatants, if they throw a punch at a police officer. Said another way... what would happen if an MP killed an unarmed soldier with six bullets two to the head after receiving a punch from said soldier?

I liked your post very much. Very classy.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Son, I'm a retired US Army Colonel. I've fought in 3 wars and shot at hundreds, if not thousands, of people. If you think me stating that I probably have a better understanding of the physical reactions involved in shooting another human being than a person who hunts deer and turkey is self aggrandizing than so be it; that isn't how I meant it.

There are opinions and there informed opinions, why people don't understand that some people have more experience in certain matters than they do is beyond me.

In any case, I meant no offense and apologize if I did so.

Let me be perfectly clear. I fully understand that my level of experience in civilian disturbances pales in comparison to what you have seen in your life. I applaud your service and formally bow to your experience in these matters as they pertain to the battlefield. Given your vastly superior experience in this matter, I respectfully withdraw my statement, it was a rude reactionary comment, esp. given that your statement was given from the perch of said vastly superior experience, and thus "justified." I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

To "re-frame" the argument, if there is one. Should we treat unarmed teens walking down the street as enemy combatants, if they throw a punch at a police officer. Said another way... what would happen if an MP killed an unarmed soldier with six bullets two to the head after receiving a punch from said soldier?

First, I appreciate the post and figured you would respond with such because we have had pleasant conversation in other threads.

Now to your question. The question is really unfair because well I was an MP in fact, and generally speaking soldiers don't take swings at MPs. Why? Because it is pretty well known if you take a swing at an MP you're going to have a bad day.


BUT, it does happen occasionally and so the first rule is NEVER give a suspect an opportunity to get your gun. Now, that may mean shooting them if you aren't capable of keeping them from overpowering you. For me , that was generally not a problem, I'm a fairly good sized guy with extensive hand to hand combat training. A 6'4" 300 lb guy would NOT get my gun and it would never leave my holster. But that's me.

As for what would happen to an MP who shot a solider 6 times after being assaulted by said soldier. My suspision is that it would be investigated and the MP would not face a court martial. But again, things are a little different in the military.

My personal belief is that ALL police officers should be ex military, and by ex military I mean honorable service. No discharged loons or basic training failures.

In an ideal world this officer should have been able to handle this kid without a weapon. That is correct, but we don't live in an ideal world.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No matter what logical leaps you make he was unarmed and shot 6 times. Bad attitudes dont get you shot, scared or abusive cops get you shot

I was just going to post that although it looks like a walk in the park for the case for Wilson, we are all making assumptions without knowing the facts that are going to be presented to the Grand Jury. That goes for your post, too. Untrue about bad attitudes don't get you shot. Bad attitudes DO get you shot. If it turns out Wilson was justified in this killing, it definitely was a bad attitude that got Brown shot. He should have froze when ordered to do so.

It will all come out in the investigation. We have to have faith in the law.

He didn't get killed for his attitude.
He got killed for battery on a LEO, a felony. and for trying to take the cop's gun, another felony...and both are legal reasons for a cop to shoot.

Sure it is but officers are trained and yet and still the officer still hasnt given a reason why he shot Brown 6 times, from a distance who was unarmed. So whatever reason you give is totally made up by you.

Notice how this guy who was high on mushrooms and had "super human strength" and not one shot was fired. Not one. Thats how they are trained.

 

[Jackson]

No matter what logical leaps you make he was unarmed and shot 6 times. Bad attitudes dont get you shot, scared or abusive cops get you shot

I was just going to post that although it looks like a walk in the park for the case for Wilson, we are all making assumptions without knowing the facts that are going to be presented to the Grand Jury. That goes for your post, too. Untrue about bad attitudes don't get you shot. Bad attitudes DO get you shot. If it turns out Wilson was justified in this killing, it definitely was a bad attitude that got Brown shot. He should have froze when ordered to do so.

It will all come out in the investigation. We have to have faith in the law.

He didn't get killed for his attitude.
He got killed for battery on a LEO, a felony. and for trying to take the cop's gun, another felony...and both are legal reasons for a cop to shoot.

Sure it is but officers are trained and yet and still the officer still hasnt given a reason why he shot Brown 6 times, from a distance who was unarmed. So whatever reason you give is totally made up by you.

Notice how this guy who was high on mushrooms and had "super human strength" and not one shot was fired. Not one. Thats how they are trained.

Notice too, there's six officers opposing one thug. How much did the guy weigh? About 170? Oh that's close to 6'4" AND 300 POUNDS. Great comparison.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No matter what logical leaps you make he was unarmed and shot 6 times. Bad attitudes dont get you shot, scared or abusive cops get you shot

I was just going to post that although it looks like a walk in the park for the case for Wilson, we are all making assumptions without knowing the facts that are going to be presented to the Grand Jury. That goes for your post, too. Untrue about bad attitudes don't get you shot. Bad attitudes DO get you shot. If it turns out Wilson was justified in this killing, it definitely was a bad attitude that got Brown shot. He should have froze when ordered to do so.

It will all come out in the investigation. We have to have faith in the law.

He didn't get killed for his attitude.
He got killed for battery on a LEO, a felony. and for trying to take the cop's gun, another felony...and both are legal reasons for a cop to shoot.

Sure it is but officers are trained and yet and still the officer still hasnt given a reason why he shot Brown 6 times, from a distance who was unarmed. So whatever reason you give is totally made up by you.

Notice how this guy who was high on mushrooms and had "super human strength" and not one shot was fired. Not one. Thats how they are trained.

and you see NO difference between that situation and the M Brown situation? I mean come on. there were SIX cops there , also, remember in the Brown situation there was another possible suspect with Brown.

Also, remember this was over in FOUR minutes start to finish.

 

[RKMBrown]

Son, I'm a retired US Army Colonel. I've fought in 3 wars and shot at hundreds, if not thousands, of people. If you think me stating that I probably have a better understanding of the physical reactions involved in shooting another human being than a person who hunts deer and turkey is self aggrandizing than so be it; that isn't how I meant it.

There are opinions and there informed opinions, why people don't understand that some people have more experience in certain matters than they do is beyond me.

In any case, I meant no offense and apologize if I did so.

Let me be perfectly clear. I fully understand that my level of experience in civilian disturbances pales in comparison to what you have seen in your life. I applaud your service and formally bow to your experience in these matters as they pertain to the battlefield. Given your vastly superior experience in this matter, I respectfully withdraw my statement, it was a rude reactionary comment, esp. given that your statement was given from the perch of said vastly superior experience, and thus "justified." I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

To "re-frame" the argument, if there is one. Should we treat unarmed teens walking down the street as enemy combatants, if they throw a punch at a police officer. Said another way... what would happen if an MP killed an unarmed soldier with six bullets two to the head after receiving a punch from said soldier?

First, I appreciate the post and figured you would respond with such because we have had pleasant conversation in other threads.

Now to your question. The question is really unfair because well I was an MP in fact, and generally speaking soldiers don't take swings at MPs. Why? Because it is pretty well known if you take a swing at an MP you're going to have a bad day.


BUT, it does happen occasionally and so the first rule is NEVER give a suspect an opportunity to get your gun. Now, that may mean shooting them if you aren't capable of keeping them from overpowering you. For me , that was generally not a problem, I'm a fairly good sized guy with extensive hand to hand combat training. A 6'4" 300 lb guy would NOT get my gun and it would never leave my holster. But that's me.

As for what would happen to an MP who shot a solider 6 times after being assaulted by said soldier. My suspision is that it would be investigated and the MP would not face a court martial. But again, things are a little different in the military.

My personal belief is that ALL police officers should be ex military, and by ex military I mean honorable service. No discharged loons or basic training failures.

In an ideal world this officer should have been able to handle this kid without a weapon. That is correct, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Fair enough. I suppose you could say I'm an idealist in this regard. Here's to hoping if one of my boys gets drunk and screws up, cause let's face it none of us are without sin or regret, someone like you will be the law officer.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Son, I'm a retired US Army Colonel. I've fought in 3 wars and shot at hundreds, if not thousands, of people. If you think me stating that I probably have a better understanding of the physical reactions involved in shooting another human being than a person who hunts deer and turkey is self aggrandizing than so be it; that isn't how I meant it.

There are opinions and there informed opinions, why people don't understand that some people have more experience in certain matters than they do is beyond me.

In any case, I meant no offense and apologize if I did so.

Let me be perfectly clear. I fully understand that my level of experience in civilian disturbances pales in comparison to what you have seen in your life. I applaud your service and formally bow to your experience in these matters as they pertain to the battlefield. Given your vastly superior experience in this matter, I respectfully withdraw my statement, it was a rude reactionary comment, esp. given that your statement was given from the perch of said vastly superior experience, and thus "justified." I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

To "re-frame" the argument, if there is one. Should we treat unarmed teens walking down the street as enemy combatants, if they throw a punch at a police officer. Said another way... what would happen if an MP killed an unarmed soldier with six bullets two to the head after receiving a punch from said soldier?

First, I appreciate the post and figured you would respond with such because we have had pleasant conversation in other threads.

Now to your question. The question is really unfair because well I was an MP in fact, and generally speaking soldiers don't take swings at MPs. Why? Because it is pretty well known if you take a swing at an MP you're going to have a bad day.


BUT, it does happen occasionally and so the first rule is NEVER give a suspect an opportunity to get your gun. Now, that may mean shooting them if you aren't capable of keeping them from overpowering you. For me , that was generally not a problem, I'm a fairly good sized guy with extensive hand to hand combat training. A 6'4" 300 lb guy would NOT get my gun and it would never leave my holster. But that's me.

As for what would happen to an MP who shot a solider 6 times after being assaulted by said soldier. My suspision is that it would be investigated and the MP would not face a court martial. But again, things are a little different in the military.

My personal belief is that ALL police officers should be ex military, and by ex military I mean honorable service. No discharged loons or basic training failures.

In an ideal world this officer should have been able to handle this kid without a weapon. That is correct, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Fair enough. I suppose you could say I'm an idealist in this regard. Here's to hoping if one of my boys gets drunk and screws up, cause let's face it none of us are without sin or regret, someone like you will be the law officer.

See , back in the old days a guy got a little out of line with the cops, they just kicked his ass and let him spend the night in jail. He learned his lesson most of the time, and believe me MPs do that A LOT. A lot of shit is never seen by a guy's commanding officer, no reason to ruin a guy's career cuz he got drunk and tore up a a bar or whatever. Just put a knot on his head and let him sleep it off.

And civilian police used to be like that to, but today you can't touch a guy without fear of being sued. Same with non lethals like pepper spray or whatever, people were complaining about cops using it so cops don't even carry them in most places anymore. So there is no step between oh shit here comes this big black guy and shooting him.

I checked, Ferguson cops are not equipped with night sticks, flashlights , tasers, or pepper spray as part of their uniform. ANY one of those things probably would have been enough to take the fight out of Mr Brown. But the
but people who complain incessantly about police brutality have taken those things off the table.

Now, I'm not suggesting police should just be allowed to run around beating the shit out of people, but a reality is there were more broken bones, but less dead bodies when people tended to look the other way when such things happened.

And another thing, again if I may. Police as a group, whether military or civilian, usually are pretty good about knowing the people they police.

In other words, for example I was an MP at several different bases over the years. At some of them the soldi were a little harder to deal with than others, and consequently I became harder in the way I dealt with them. At other bases, the soldiers were easier to deal with , and so I dealt with them easier.

In other words, most cops treat people the way they deserve to be treated.

 

[RKMBrown]

Son, I'm a retired US Army Colonel. I've fought in 3 wars and shot at hundreds, if not thousands, of people. If you think me stating that I probably have a better understanding of the physical reactions involved in shooting another human being than a person who hunts deer and turkey is self aggrandizing than so be it; that isn't how I meant it.

There are opinions and there informed opinions, why people don't understand that some people have more experience in certain matters than they do is beyond me.

In any case, I meant no offense and apologize if I did so.

Let me be perfectly clear. I fully understand that my level of experience in civilian disturbances pales in comparison to what you have seen in your life. I applaud your service and formally bow to your experience in these matters as they pertain to the battlefield. Given your vastly superior experience in this matter, I respectfully withdraw my statement, it was a rude reactionary comment, esp. given that your statement was given from the perch of said vastly superior experience, and thus "justified." I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

To "re-frame" the argument, if there is one. Should we treat unarmed teens walking down the street as enemy combatants, if they throw a punch at a police officer. Said another way... what would happen if an MP killed an unarmed soldier with six bullets two to the head after receiving a punch from said soldier?

First, I appreciate the post and figured you would respond with such because we have had pleasant conversation in other threads.

Now to your question. The question is really unfair because well I was an MP in fact, and generally speaking soldiers don't take swings at MPs. Why? Because it is pretty well known if you take a swing at an MP you're going to have a bad day.


BUT, it does happen occasionally and so the first rule is NEVER give a suspect an opportunity to get your gun. Now, that may mean shooting them if you aren't capable of keeping them from overpowering you. For me , that was generally not a problem, I'm a fairly good sized guy with extensive hand to hand combat training. A 6'4" 300 lb guy would NOT get my gun and it would never leave my holster. But that's me.

As for what would happen to an MP who shot a solider 6 times after being assaulted by said soldier. My suspision is that it would be investigated and the MP would not face a court martial. But again, things are a little different in the military.

My personal belief is that ALL police officers should be ex military, and by ex military I mean honorable service. No discharged loons or basic training failures.

In an ideal world this officer should have been able to handle this kid without a weapon. That is correct, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Fair enough. I suppose you could say I'm an idealist in this regard. Here's to hoping if one of my boys gets drunk and screws up, cause let's face it none of us are without sin or regret, someone like you will be the law officer.

See , back in the old days a guy got a little out of line with the cops, they just kicked his ass and let him spend the night in jail. He learned his lesson most of the time, and believe me MPs do that A LOT. A lot of shit is never seen by a guy's commanding officer, no reason to ruin a guy's career cuz he got drunk and tore up a a bar or whatever. Just put a knot on his head and let him sleep it off.

And civilian police used to be like that to, but today you can't touch a guy without fear of being sued. Same with non lethals like pepper spray or whatever, people were complaining about cops using it so cops don't even carry them in most places anymore. So there is no step between oh shit here comes this big black guy and shooting him.

I checked, Ferguson cops are not equipped with night sticks, flashlights , tasers, or pepper spray as part of their uniform. ANY one of those things probably would have been enough to take the fight out of Mr Brown. But the
but people who complain incessantly about police brutality have taken those things off the table.

Now, I'm not suggesting police should just be allowed to run around beating the shit out of people, but a reality is there were more broken bones, but less dead bodies when people tended to look the other way when such things happened.

And another thing, again if I may. Police as a group, whether military or civilian, usually are pretty good about knowing the people they police.

In other words, for example I was an MP at several different bases over the years. At some of them the soldi were a little harder to deal with than others, and consequently I became harder in the way I dealt with them. At other bases, the soldiers were easier to deal with , and so I dealt with them easier.

In other words, most cops treat people the way they deserve to be treated.

Really? No non-lethal weapons? Not even a 5D Cell flash light? Political Correctness... sigh.