What if the cops story is true?

londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
And which story was true? The one he told the people at the site and the one he told anderson cooper?? Oh yeah, the one you WANT to believe.

Again, how many eye-witnesses have to agree with the cop before you question the claims of the 4 eye witnesses that the cop shot Michael Brown in the back?
Click to expand...
the story never changed. Only the people telling it. Like yourself. Never did anyone say he was shot in the back. He said he felt a shot and turned around. That shot could very well have been in the arm as he was running away.
Bottom line is Officer Darren Wilson will have to explain every bullet that came out his gun and hit Brown. The one to the face and the one to the head should be interesting. The one to the TOP of his skull sounds like he was shooting after Brown was going down to the ground. Sounds rather excessive to me.
 
texasjack

texasjack

Well-Known Member
like most times, this is about more than a police shooting. It's about unemployment, disenfranchisement, racism, poverty, hopelessness, etc. The shooting was just a tipping point or catalyst. The media feeds the American people this simple minded shit so they can put it in a little box and move on.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I know it wont happen but lets try to limit the discussion to a hypothetical in the Michael Brown shooting.

Lets assume the cops story is true. And therefore,

He came upon a suspect he believed to be involved in a robbery.

The cop attempted to exit his vehicle but the door was slammed shut by Michael Brown.

On the second attempt for the cop to get out of the vehicle, Michael Brown punches the cop in the face, breaking bones around his eye and almost knocking him out.

Then Michael Brown tries to take the cops gun but after a brief struggle where the gun goes off he gives up and runs away from the car.

The cop gets out, gun drawn, orders them to freeze.

Michael Brown taunts the cop and then runs at him as if to tackle him...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE THREAD ASSUME THE ABOVE IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Did the cop have the right to shoot an unarmed man and did he have the right to shoot him at least 6 times??

I am interested in finding out how many people on the forum think this was still excessive force by the police.
Click to expand...
Assuming what you wrote is accurate, then yes the cop was justified in shooting Michael Brown.

The round count is irrelevant, he could have shot MB 17 times and it would still be legit in your scenario. When you use lethal force the point is to stop the aggressor. If one round drops him, then you stop with one round, if it takes 20 rounds then you use 20.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
fr3d12 said:
I don't live in the US but if it went down that way I still think there has to be questions asked about why he couldn't incapacitate the guy, would his training not have prepared him for such incidents especially with unarmed people, surely someone charging you would be standard police academy fayre.
I'm not a fan of cops of any country especially my own but they are not all bad and are necessary so he should be treated fairly but so should the deceased, hopefully for all concerned the truth will eventually come out.
Click to expand...
When you draw a weapon, you are using lethal force. You shoot to kill, not wound. That is standard training in the US, and I would be surprised if it wasn't standard training everywhere. It is absurd to expect anybody to shoot to incapacitate an attacker.
 
H.M. Murdoch

H.M. Murdoch

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I know it wont happen but lets try to limit the discussion to a hypothetical in the Michael Brown shooting.

Lets assume the cops story is true. And therefore,

He came upon a suspect he believed to be involved in a robbery.

The cop attempted to exit his vehicle but the door was slammed shut by Michael Brown.

On the second attempt for the cop to get out of the vehicle, Michael Brown punches the cop in the face, breaking bones around his eye and almost knocking him out.

Then Michael Brown tries to take the cops gun but after a brief struggle where the gun goes off he gives up and runs away from the car.

The cop gets out, gun drawn, orders them to freeze.

Michael Brown taunts the cop and then runs at him as if to tackle him...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE THREAD ASSUME THE ABOVE IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Did the cop have the right to shoot an unarmed man and did he have the right to shoot him at least 6 times??

I am interested in finding out how many people on the forum think this was still excessive force by the police.
Click to expand...
If this is the true story (as I believe), then the cop was justified shooting until all his clips were empty, if that was what it took to stop the thief druggie from attacking him.

But in the case of decorated white cops vs. black thugs, our country seems to side with black thugs these days...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
H.M. Murdoch said:
If this is the true story (as I believe), then the cop was justified shooting until all his clips were empty, if that was what it took to stop the thief druggie from attacking him.

But in the case of decorated white cops vs. black thugs, our country seems to side with black thugs these days...
Click to expand...
go back to stormfront.
 
Ceepea

Ceepea

Well-Known Member
Should have shot him in the legs. Once.

Not center mass shots 6 times.

If you want to see how police SHOULD act just look at myriad European countries. Take Sweden for example, guy with 2 knives evading police and running down the street. Cops with weapons drawn command him to stop an lay down his weapons, guy didn't comply and got popped in the knee. Down he went, and 5 cops tackled him.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Ceepea said:
Should have shot him in the legs. Once.

Not center mass shots 6 times.

If you want to see how police SHOULD act just look at myriad European countries. Take Sweden for example, guy with 2 knives evading police and running down the street. Cops with weapons drawn command him to stop an lay down his weapons, guy didn't comply and got popped in the knee. Down he went, and 5 cops tackled him.
Click to expand...
 
Ceepea

Ceepea

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
Click to expand...
LEO's need to be more thoroughly screened. I was reading about how the chief of police said something to the effect of, "Officers have an expectation to go home at night", which is true! But if you're a LEO you should know HOW to 'get home at night' without using deadly force when possible.

Any idiot with a gun can shoot someone who gives them guff with the excuse of "I expect to go home at night"....

Pay cops $125,000 and make it harder to be a police officer than it is to be a lawyer. They have as much, if not more responsibility.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Ceepea said:
Yes, because shooting an unarmed man who is "taunting" you is "smart as fuck" and kelly approved.

Punched in the face = death sentence.

Click to expand...
You must not have watched the video posted of cops in another country who didn't shoot a man with a knife. Cops died.

Man ended up being shot anyway.
 
Ceepea

Ceepea

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
You must not have watched the video posted of cops in another country who didn't shoot a man with a knife. Cops died.

Man ended up being shot anyway.
Click to expand...
You realize the leg is part of the body right? Being shot in the leg is still being shot. You know cops don't carry single shot pistols, right? After they fire one into your leg, usually they have 15 or so more shots at their disposal.... I assume you didn''t know any of this based on your comments.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Ceepea said:
You realize the leg is part of the body right? Being shot in the leg is still being shot. You know cops don't carry single shot pistols, right? After they fire one into your leg, usually they have 15 or so more shots at their disposal.... I assume you didn''t know any of this based on your comments.
Click to expand...
LOL! You think the average cop can hit a moving person in the knee with the first shot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top