No charges for Missouri cop who shot unarmed teenager
Discussion
I was at a McDonalds once in the US and there were a group of state troopers in the line in front of me. It was clearly a regular meeting point for them. They were all about 6'5", plus their wide brimmed hats. They're uniforms were immaculate & their boots had mirror finish toe caps. They towered over me and I sure wouldn't want to mess with them. Plus state troopers are notoriously unforgiving I was told. A local cop may let you off with a warning, but the state troopers will likely book you.
For a bit of balance as I have a generally fairly low opinion of the constabulary.....
I was out in the F-Type on a Sunday morning a few weeks ago. I was sat at the lights waiting to turn left onto a nice bit of dual carriageway that I habitually enjoy, roof down, shades on, pipes on loud, sun shining. I looked in the mirror and saw that the Sheriff had cruised up behind me in his Charger, just the two of waiting for the light. I turned left, into the inside lane and up to the 45mph limit and waited for him to pass. He pulls level with his window down and holds station. Eventually I glance over and he gives me the signal to let it go. It would have been rude to refuse! Gave it a quick blast up to 80 or so and then lifted off so the pipes popped and banged. He passed me with thumb up and a big grin. Nice moment.
I was out in the F-Type on a Sunday morning a few weeks ago. I was sat at the lights waiting to turn left onto a nice bit of dual carriageway that I habitually enjoy, roof down, shades on, pipes on loud, sun shining. I looked in the mirror and saw that the Sheriff had cruised up behind me in his Charger, just the two of waiting for the light. I turned left, into the inside lane and up to the 45mph limit and waited for him to pass. He pulls level with his window down and holds station. Eventually I glance over and he gives me the signal to let it go. It would have been rude to refuse! Gave it a quick blast up to 80 or so and then lifted off so the pipes popped and banged. He passed me with thumb up and a big grin. Nice moment.
Impasse said:
Wilson (the cop) has resigned. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30266172
I hope that this is by arrangement and that he is 'looked after'Fo those of you who didn't agree that the US police force was any more 'militarised' than the Euro police forces I presume you've all heard about this today: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/01/oba...
Even our resident US expert JB must have heard the term "militarised" in conjunction with the Police force today as it's been on Fox News.
Anyway, it made the ITN news at lunchtime.
Obama resists demands to curtail police militarisation calling instead for improved officer training.
'Barack Obama has resisted calls to cancel or significantly curtail federal programs that transfer billions of dollars of military equipment to local police forces on Monday, choosing instead to focus on improving the training of officers given access to HIGH-POWERED WEAPONS AND ARMOURED VEHICLES PREVIOUSLY USED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN'
Add that to the Grenade Launchers etc and you have a police force with an arsenal that could literally almost fight a war.
Even our resident US expert JB must have heard the term "militarised" in conjunction with the Police force today as it's been on Fox News.
Anyway, it made the ITN news at lunchtime.
Obama resists demands to curtail police militarisation calling instead for improved officer training.
'Barack Obama has resisted calls to cancel or significantly curtail federal programs that transfer billions of dollars of military equipment to local police forces on Monday, choosing instead to focus on improving the training of officers given access to HIGH-POWERED WEAPONS AND ARMOURED VEHICLES PREVIOUSLY USED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN'
Add that to the Grenade Launchers etc and you have a police force with an arsenal that could literally almost fight a war.
Just spottedthis from Huff:
In 1997, Congress added a section to a defense appropriations bill creating an agency to transfer surplus military gear to state and local police departments. Since then, millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a battlefield -- such as tanks, bayonets, M-16s, and armored personnel carriers -- have been given to domestic police agencies for use on American streets, against American citizens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/obama-pol...
In 1997, Congress added a section to a defense appropriations bill creating an agency to transfer surplus military gear to state and local police departments. Since then, millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a battlefield -- such as tanks, bayonets, M-16s, and armored personnel carriers -- have been given to domestic police agencies for use on American streets, against American citizens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/obama-pol...
KTF said:
Do they not use bayonets against non-American citizens then? I guess a strong telling off soon puts them back in line.
You might think so. However, according to tannedbaldhead getting a telling off from a US cop is something you can ignore, and fully expect to do so with impunity. Should the cops catch you doing the same thing again, apparently your response should be to continue to bad mouth them, even if they let you off a second time without charge (or the use of a bayonet) . KareemK said:
Just spottedthis from Huff:
In 1997, Congress added a section to a defense appropriations bill creating an agency to transfer surplus military gear to state and local police departments. Since then, millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a battlefield -- such as tanks, bayonets, M-16s, and armored personnel carriers -- have been given to domestic police agencies for use on American streets, against American citizens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/obama-pol...
You are obviously on a bit of a mission with this Kareem, but i think we need to revisit what you said originally so that we can keep things relevant.In 1997, Congress added a section to a defense appropriations bill creating an agency to transfer surplus military gear to state and local police departments. Since then, millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a battlefield -- such as tanks, bayonets, M-16s, and armored personnel carriers -- have been given to domestic police agencies for use on American streets, against American citizens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/obama-pol...
You stated that incidents like the killing of Michael Brown would continue, as long as we have a grotesquely militarized police and a heavily armed public.
The officer who killed Michael Brown was wearing regular patrol attire and using a Chevy Tahoe SUV - I suggest he was not grotesquely militarized.
Michael Brown was unarmed (though he allegedly postured to suggest he was) - so he was not heavily armed.
Your made your point strenuously and with supposed authority - but with zero relevance or basis in fact.
I don't believe that anyone is denying the existence of armored vehicles, as used by US police agency SWAT teams and similar - and US officers are similarly equipped with riot gear as their European colleagues.
The reality is that they are only utilized when the threat to officers safety demands it (i.e. they are not roaming the war-torn streets, RoboCop style.)
I think it is fair to state that the only people who have any objection to the police protecting themselves from lawless dirtbags are the lawless dirtbags themselves - and people like you (who are not effected by any of this, but appear to feel offended nonetheless).
I think it's somewhat telling that you feel the need to inject and proliferate a racial component to this discussion - this is a case of a criminal young man who was attempting to disarm a police officer, having robbed a convenience store and getting shot to death as a consequence. His ethnicity and that of the cop who killed him is not the issue - is it?
KareemK said:
Obama resists demands to curtail police militarisation calling instead for improved officer training.
They are more militarised than Europe in terms of contingencies and equipment availability. There's no doubt that's the case. Their regular deployments they do 99.9% of the time they aren't. They carry handcuffs, a baton, CS / pepper spray, a Taser (sometimes) and a sidearm. Not unlike most of the police across the world, including most of Europe.
You said they were "grossly over militarised". I see no evidence this is the case.
Matt Harper said:
I think it's somewhat telling that you feel the need to inject and proliferate a racial component to this discussion - this is a case of a criminal young man who was attempting to disarm a police officer, having robbed a convenience store and getting shot to death as a consequence. His ethnicity and that of the cop who killed him is not the issue - is it?
Surely the whole point of what's been going on over recent weeks is the racial element?? Or have I been following a different story?His phrase is "Grotesquely militarized".
My daughters patrol kit is radio, 2 x 9mm magazine, taser, 2 x cuffs, cable ties, telescopic hasp, flashlight, sidearm (Glock17 9mm), ballistic vest (which I bought, as the police issue is cheap, heavy, poor quality, minimal protection). She also carries a lock-knife and a back-up gun in an ankle holster (Ruger SP101 .38 Spl)
My daughters patrol kit is radio, 2 x 9mm magazine, taser, 2 x cuffs, cable ties, telescopic hasp, flashlight, sidearm (Glock17 9mm), ballistic vest (which I bought, as the police issue is cheap, heavy, poor quality, minimal protection). She also carries a lock-knife and a back-up gun in an ankle holster (Ruger SP101 .38 Spl)
pointedstarman said:
Surely the whole point of what's been going on over recent weeks is the racial element?? Or have I been following a different story?
The whole point for who? Boiled-down, it is a case of "Cop kills unarmed man who attacked him and tried to take his gun".
How do you understand it?
I lifted this from a LEO forum that I read - and has some relevance to this discussion too.
"The recurrent expression of outrage by critics and the mainstream media about the use of deadly force by police officers against unarmed individuals fails to recognize that since 2000 at least 57 suspects have taken officers’ weapons and murdered the police officer with it.
That means that about every three months in the USA, one officer’s family gets a knock on the door and is told that a husband, father, son, or daughter won’t be coming home ever again. Although you won’t see a rally in the street when it happens again, or see five hours a night of news coverage dedicated to the ongoing developments surrounding the incident, it will surely happen again.
While statistics for officers murdered with their own weapons are difficult to research, we know from the Los Angeles Police Protection League, the FBI and www.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least 51 officers were killed by alleged perpetrators who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer was killed in 2013. Moreover, so far in 2014, it has been confirmed that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered in March with his own weapon. Smith had served in the police department for over 18 years.
In Smith’s case, according to the Officers Down Memorial Page report, before he was able to exit his patrol car or radio for help, the alleged assailant was able to disarm Officer Smith and shoot him while he was still in the patrol car.
Perhaps those that are quick to jump to conclusions in the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson and the death of Ezell Brown in Los Angeles could show some restraint. All the facts are not in and a rush to judgment may be unfair to the innocent as well as damaging to local store owners."
"The recurrent expression of outrage by critics and the mainstream media about the use of deadly force by police officers against unarmed individuals fails to recognize that since 2000 at least 57 suspects have taken officers’ weapons and murdered the police officer with it.
That means that about every three months in the USA, one officer’s family gets a knock on the door and is told that a husband, father, son, or daughter won’t be coming home ever again. Although you won’t see a rally in the street when it happens again, or see five hours a night of news coverage dedicated to the ongoing developments surrounding the incident, it will surely happen again.
While statistics for officers murdered with their own weapons are difficult to research, we know from the Los Angeles Police Protection League, the FBI and www.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least 51 officers were killed by alleged perpetrators who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer was killed in 2013. Moreover, so far in 2014, it has been confirmed that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered in March with his own weapon. Smith had served in the police department for over 18 years.
In Smith’s case, according to the Officers Down Memorial Page report, before he was able to exit his patrol car or radio for help, the alleged assailant was able to disarm Officer Smith and shoot him while he was still in the patrol car.
Perhaps those that are quick to jump to conclusions in the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson and the death of Ezell Brown in Los Angeles could show some restraint. All the facts are not in and a rush to judgment may be unfair to the innocent as well as damaging to local store owners."
Matt Harper said:
You are obviously on a bit of a mission with this Kareem, but i think we need to revisit what you said originally so that we can keep things relevant.
You stated that incidents like the killing of Michael Brown would continue, as long as we have a grotesquely militarized police and a heavily armed public.
It's not a mission Matt, its a fact. I'm not saying that the killing of michael Brown was down to a particularily militarized police man as clearly that wasn't the case. Indeed i feel its disingenuous to suggest that I'm saying that. I'm saying that incidents LIKE...thats 'LIKE' Matt...would continue to happen as both the criminals and police are so geared up for that eventuality that its almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course future incidents likely wont be the in the exact same set of circumstances but they will happen.You stated that incidents like the killing of Michael Brown would continue, as long as we have a grotesquely militarized police and a heavily armed public.
The main point that I was making was that the US police service is armed just like a military force as is becomming apparent. Its irrelevent that the local bobby on the beat isnt in a tank, his station can call upon one if required and that is the real point I'm making when I say "grotesquely over militairized police force".
Matt Harper said:
pointedstarman said:
Surely the whole point of what's been going on over recent weeks is the racial element?? Or have I been following a different story?
The whole point for who? Boiled-down, it is a case of "Cop kills unarmed man who attacked him and tried to take his gun".
How do you understand it?
I personally think, on the balance of the information as I understand it, the shooting was justifiable in the context of the way police work in the US. That said, I also think the US has a huge problem with racism that ain't going away and given the way the domographics are heading it's only going to get worse.
KareemK said:
Matt Harper said:
You are obviously on a bit of a mission with this Kareem, but i think we need to revisit what you said originally so that we can keep things relevant.
You stated that incidents like the killing of Michael Brown would continue, as long as we have a grotesquely militarized police and a heavily armed public.
It's not a mission Matt, its a fact. I'm not saying that the killing of michael Brown was down to a particularily militarized police man as clearly that wasn't the case. Indeed i feel its disingenuous to suggest that I'm saying that. I'm saying that incidents LIKE...thats 'LIKE' Matt...would continue to happen as both the criminals and police are so geared up for that eventuality that its almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course future incidents likely wont be the in the exact same set of circumstances but they will happen.You stated that incidents like the killing of Michael Brown would continue, as long as we have a grotesquely militarized police and a heavily armed public.
The main point that I was making was that the US police service is armed just like a military force as is becomming apparent. Its irrelevent that the local bobby on the beat isnt in a tank, his station can call upon one if required and that is the real point I'm making when I say "grotesquely over militairized police force".
Your main point is equally confusing to me. There is no such entity as the US police service. Like pretty much everywhere in the uS, the city in which I live is serviced by a multitude of different agencies - Orlando Police Dept, Orange County Sheriffs Office, Belle Isle PD, Seminole County Sheriffs Office, UCF PD, Windermere PD, Ocoee PD, Apopka PD, Winter Park PD, Florida Highway Patrol - I could go on and on. I promise you faithfully - none of those agencies have access to a tank. An armored personnel carrier - sure - but that isn't a tank. Perhaps there is a police agency somewhere in the US that does indeed have access to a tank (though I can't think of one - do you really mean a tank - you know, with a great big gun on it and tracks and all that stuff?) - but if there is, it can not be reasonably construed as militarization, can it? That would require lots of tanks.
Would you please share with me why you object to the police being able to protect themselves from those that would like to harm them? I'm genuinely interested to hear your reasoning.
KareemK said:
It's not a mission Matt, its a fact.
Your opinion isn't fact. KareemK said:
Its irrelevent that the local bobby on the beat isnt in a tank
It's wholly relevant as that represents the situation the public see and face nearly all the time. KareemK said:
Its irrelevent that the local bobby on the beat isnt in a tank, his station can call upon one if required and that is the real point I'm making when I say "grotesquely over militairized police force".
Yes, exactly, "if required". If required because the threat and risk level in the US occasionally, and rarely, requires more serious equipment to be used to deal with the threat and risk. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff