Police/public relationship in the U.S.

[Nick]

The problem with stats like the above is they often don't differentiate between "homicides" as such, legit homicides (criminals killed by police in the commission of a crime) and suicides. So, when folks like you read those stats they just see "HOMICIDES!!!" in bold print and figure "MURDERS!!!"

Sorry Bob should have qualified it, as I knew that old chestnut would come up, no problem with the stats as :-

They show Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups.

I'm done I can see why Jim Craik used to get so frustrated and is intelligent enough to stay away, what have the romans ever done for us comes to mind again .

 

[Robert May Eng.]

It got me routing about the stats here though Nick, I found this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ce_Firearms_stats_Commons_-_2013_7_11__3_.pdf
If you look at table 1 it would appear that our police go tooled up to more incidents than we are aware of. Noted are the Met figures that make the the rest of the country look tame.

Bob

 

[Larry L.]

They show Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups.

...so, you're saying you thought you were at high risk of being shot while over here because you figured it was highly likely you'd be involved in a "domestic dispute", a "conflict over land/resources", "intergang gang turf wars (to which gang do you belong?)", "preditory violence" (however that's defined), or being killed by "an armed group"? Seriously? What th' heck kinda activities do you involve yourself in on a daily basis, for Pete's sake?!

The only one of the situations you listed that possibly might have a one-in-10-million chance of happening is the "interpersonal violence" thing. So, how many murders in the U.S. were the result of "interpersonal, NON-GANG RELATED violence"?

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you decided to come to America if you felt that afraid? :shrug:

 

[Larry L.]

Are things still as 'cut-and-dried' for some of you?

Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source | Fox News

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

We don't know the truth and may never know it.

Here is a video that if watched will cause you decide how this happened but when the story is read your viewpoint will change...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=670841776267356

How you view an event is dependent upon where you are..................

 

[Doc Kaler]

A retired Texas DPS LEO friend sent that to me a few days ago. Even knowing the outcome before hand and seeing the video its difficult to recognize what occurred.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

So....are they training their police officers to shoot to kill and not stop until the victim is down, perhaps (or, maybe, preferably) dead?


Doug

Obviously I don't know how the police are trained in the U.S.
But that is exactly how I was trained in the army.

 

[Charlie Farley]

I see the Rev ( sic ) Jesse Jackson is now involved.

This comes to mind...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ3eA5gxiLs]stir it up bob marley legend - YouTube[/ame]

I guess he has to justify his existence..
Just like the old ex white police chiefs they wheel onto tv news shows..

 

[Larry L.]

Jackson and Sharpton are nothing more than ‘race hustlers' and 'pot stirrers'...along with being an extortionist in Jackson's case. (He's often threatened to start boycotts against this or that company that didn't grant his requests/meet his DEMANDS for this or that.)

Two more d-i-s-g-u-s-t-i-n-g, self-serving parasites do not exist. <?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>

 

[Pat]

Obviously I don't know how the police are trained in the U.S.
But that is exactly how I was trained in the army.

Pete, it's the generally same as the military.

Police are trained here to only use a weapon as a last resort. The exact statutes vary by state but they are similar to this:
The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.

Each discharge of a weapon is investigated.

 

[Larry L.]

We don't know the truth and may never know it.

Here is a video that if watched will cause you decide how this happened but when the story is read your viewpoint will change...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=670841776267356

How you view an event is dependent upon where you are..................

Is this the vid wherein the 'perp' had a pistol in is belt (around back) and, if the scene were viewed from another angle, 'was reaching for it as he was putting down the long gun???

I seem to recall seeing a vid wherein that had been the case. 'Don't know if this IS that vid.

If you look real close at the perp's right hand at the :06 mark, I think you can see a pistol on the sidewalk beside said hand.

Edit: FREEZE the vid at :04.5 (or so!) and you can see quite clearly there IS a gun IN his hand! You hafta freeze the vid at the point juuuuuust before his ELBOW hits the sidewalk or you won't see the gun clearly.

So, by golly, this IS the vid I remember seeing!

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Larry,

Yes this is THAT video, point is what you THINK you see is not what actually happened.

Sadly all parties to this are losers...the kids family and the cop and and his family. Someone was wrong and someone was "right" but still someone is dead and another person has his life turned upside down and basically ruined doing the job he was hired for....

Edit: I am referring to the Mo. case, not the Chicago dirtbag shoot.

 

[Larry L.]

...point is what you THINK you see is not what actually happened.

You'll get no argument from me on that one.

 

[Doug S.]

Lots of new info...not sure who to believe.

One source says that Brown had the officer on the ground and was pounding on him when the officer fired his gun. Another says the forensic evidence shows that the trajectory of the bullets that hit Brown in the head brings them from behind...hard to shoot someone in the back of the head or the top of the head when they have you on the ground beating the crap out of you.

So much contradictory evidence....NOW I'm ready to admit to a rush to judgement....but the forensic evidence is SO contradictory to the verbal reports we had at first...

point is what you THINK you see is not what actually happened.

Correct you are, Mark...we have all been raised to respect the reports of an eye-witness, but forensics shows that eyewitness reports are VERY unreliable. Hard to argue with forensic evidence, though...scuff rings where the bullets entered the head show that they were fired from behind Brown. I hate to say it, but it could get worse for the police officer as hard evidence comes in.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Keith]

So much contradictory evidence....NOW I'm ready to admit to a rush to judgement....but the forensic evidence is SO contradictory to the verbal reports we had at first...



I hate to say it, but it could get worse for the police officer as hard evidence comes in.

Cheers!

Doug

Well, lets look on the bright side. It can't get any worse for Mr Brown...

 

[Larry L.]

...scuff rings where the bullets entered the head show that they were fired from behind Brown.

Says who?

Dr. Michael Baden, who did one of the autopsies, stated that the round entered the T-O-P of Brown's head. Unless "Officer Wilson" is an AKA for the "Jolly Green Giant", how could he possibly have shot Brown from behind and have that round hit Brown in the TOP of his head???

Inside the private autopsy on Michael Brown | On Air Videos | Fox News

Furthermore, the head shot was the kill shot. That one put Brown on the deck permanently. So, had Brown been 'running away' when that shot was fired (and he'd have to have BEEN "running away" for the bullet to strike him in the back of the head), his body would have to have hit the ground facing away from Wilson's patrol car...but it didn't...his body fell facing toward the 'car.

This all suggests to me (as I've stated before) that Brown was heading toward Wilson...Wilson was firing his weapon...Brown fell fwd from the effects of the previous rounds...and as he was going down, at some point his head dropped down horiziontal to the ground, and that's the moment when the final round struck him on the top of his head.

But - that's all just theory right now. Logical theory based on conclusions drawn from autopsy sketches and crime scene photos to be sure...but, THEORY none the less.

I WASN'T THERE...

 

[Doug S.]

I was watching a report on one of the national TV networks...there was evidence on the trajectory of the bullets that entered Mr. Brown's head...the one to the top of the head came from above and behind. The one that entered the forehead and was deflected also came from above and behind. The way they could tell was the way the bullet scuffs the bone of the skull as it penetrates...the term they used was "scuff ring".

As for how to hit him from behind AND above...like you say, if Brown was walking or running away that would have been hard...UNLESS he suffered from some disruption to his balance and that gave the officer the "target" in a position to show entry from behind and above.

As for the Fox News(?) report...Fox will find a way to blame this whole fiasco on Obama. Nothing they can say holds any credibility with me, their only agenda is to try to make the current administration look inept...

As you say, Larry...none of us was there (thankfully)...the mystery about the trajectory of the bullets would seem to be a dilema, as I can't figure out how the bullets could have entered from behind if he had turned around to come back, or to ??? The trajectory would have had to come from front....which would make sense, Brown may have had his head down charging the officer if he had turned around. The only problem with that theory is that so far I haven't heard any reports that he turned around, the reports I get all say he was moving away from the officer when he was shot.

Do we have a grassy knoll nearby? Oh, wait....that's another mystery, not this one.

For him to have had the bullets enter from "behind" if he was facing the officer would have required that he almost be standing on his head...we have no reports of that, either.

There WILL be more information coming...

Regards!

Doug

 

[Keith]

I find this entire thread has become extremely distasteful with this kind of speculative detail. Is it not enough to have to suffer the dehumanising effect of a public beheading and to further have to put up with a pseudo forensic discussion on the dynamics of a head shot on another human being?

Please.....

We don't all have to live cheek by jowel with weapons of violent destruction, and this is after all a truly international forum.

The thread subject has merit, however the gory speculation, in my view, does not.

 

[Larry L.]

As for the Fox News(?) report...Fox will find a way to blame this whole fiasco on Obama. Nothing they can say holds any credibility with me, their only agenda is to try to make the current administration look inept...

Uuuuuuuh huh...and we all know YOUR "agenda", don't we, Doug. Namely, "it's FOX News' fault"..."FOX lies!"..."It's Bush's fault"..."Bush lied!"..."It's the GOP's fault"..."The GOP lies!"..."it's The House's fault"..."The House lies!..."it's Boehner's fault"..."Boehner lies!", etc., etc. - and no matter WHAT the topic, you make darned sure to inject that agenda into the discussion (as we see here). Right?

FOX News didn't 'provide' the statements Dr. Baden made, Doug. FOX was just his interviewer. Their (FOX News') "credibility" - or that of any other outfit for that matter - makes no diff in a "live" interview. Baden said what he said. WHERE he said it doesn't matter...or shouldn't as long as the interview is broadcast live. 'Can't selectively "edit" that.

 

[Doug S.]

Right you are! Now it's all about finding out what actually happened. Did we have a police officer who was being beaten mercilessly, bringing him to feel reasonable fear for "...life and limb...", or do we have a police officer who took a lickin' and extracted revenge as Brown was walking away after the altercation.

What a mess, though...:thumbsdown:

Regards,

Doug