America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,739 comments
  • 1,660,711 views
Omnis
He never took his hands out of his pockets. They didn't know whether he was mentally ill or not. That doesn't even matter. A police officer is going to protect himself no matter what. You don't accost one when he has his gun drawn on you.
Click to expand...

He did, he had them out of his pockets as they left the car, it's very very clear on the video. As they exit he says "shoot me now!", a pretty sure sign that someone's attempting SBP. I just watched it again three times from the moment he's first spotted by the passer-by who films it to the moment that police support arrives (after he's dead and being handcuffed).

He was not in range of the officers.

Did you read the links? An officer who doesn't recognise the SBP profile represents, to me, an officer who doesn't understand Protect and Serve. It's his job to stop suicides, not to shout "Jump!". Two officers arriving and taking that action, that says to me that the PD has failed the officers as much as they went on to fail the victim.

Did you read the links? The first contained this interesting comment from an officer (and it looks as though the site takes considerable steps to ensure the veracity of posting "officers");

PoliceOne
Just today, I answered an attempted suicide call in which the person was supposedly holding a knife to his throat. Upon arrival, he was. He is a person that has attempted suicide several times, has an alcohol problem, and asked if I would shoot him if he ran at me with the knife. Luckily other officers and I were able to use a taser to subdue the subject and he was unsuccessful in his attempt, but it caused me to give serious thought to this issue. When I read this article, many of the cues that I observed and the history of the person coincides with the information provided in the article. This is an excellent read.
Click to expand...

I support the officer's right to defend themselves but in the video you can see both suspects hands and both officers have sworn they saw a knife in one and the other empty. Suspect shouts "shoot me now!" and they do, from 10 feet away.

I suspect that if you watched Taser training videos you'd find that to be a pretty standard scenario.

Omnis
In an edge-weapon attack, the standard training is that an assailant can cover 21 feet of space in the time it takes to draw your gun and fire one shot.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that? And have did you watch the full video? You're describing a situation that it's hard to see there.

Omnis
A shot or taze against this guy could still have allowed him to cover the ground and stab one of them. He was AWFULLY close before they opened fire.
Click to expand...

With completely genuine respect he was at least 8 feet away from the nearest and therefore much further from the second. Neither left the vehicle doorway, the closest officer had time to be back in the car with the door shut. There was time for either officer to have used taser (very effective, never seen anyone not put down by it), I saw no justifiable need for homicide, none at all.

Michael Brown? Possibly there was, but we don't have any evidence yet apart from few facts and considerable hearsay. Here you've got a detailed 3:12 video.


EDIT: Coincidentally just saw a video on Facebook where, again, two officers confront one man and shoot him. He dies. I have no arguments that they had to shoot him, none whatsoever!

Please delete link if not allowed; this is on Facebook but does show a man being shot dead.
 
Last edited:
I think Powell's behaviour/actions could easily have been influenced by the Brown shooting, perhaps giving him some reason to believe that he was not in as grave danger as he actually was. For the cops, it would be impossible to tell whether he was mentally ill, drugged up or, as I suspect, exhibiting a mixture of extreme bravado under a misguided belief that the cops might back down, due to recent events surrounding the Brown shooting. Either way, ignoring repeated requests to drop his weapon and continuing to approach the cops was enough reason for the police to shoot him. I don't know what the correct protocol is, but clearly they did not intend to give Powell a chance to retaliate in some way (i.e. to pull out a gun and start shooting from the ground). He is clearly still alive after being shot, and I reckon that at least some of the vocal sounds/speech you can hear after the shootings is likely from Powell himself. After he is shot, you hear someone saying something like 'Aw man!' in a pained voice, and it could easily have been Powell himself - the timbre of the voice is very similar Powell's heard earlier in the video. If that is the case, then it sounds to me like he wasn't actually expecting them to shoot him. I could easily be wrong, though.
 


Not worth risking your life and the lives of everyone in the area to save his. It could have gone very differently, but we'll never know.
 
Touring Mars
continuing to approach the cops was enough reason for the police to shoot him.
Click to expand...

He climbed onto a short wall then climbed down to the other-side-from-the-cops before the shot him, he was moving away or at least parallel.

His hands are clearly visible for 20s before he's shot. Plenty of time for either officer to draw taser with the other hand and deploy it without lowering their sidearm. Not training-room protocol but that hardly matters.

The video again. Cops arrive just after 1:00-ish. He's visible over a car's length away for some time. The officer driving is at no obvious threat at any time (the passenger officer is in more danger) and there was no reason not to use taser at that time.

It was just easier to kill him, that's my opinion.

Omnis
Naked zombie ninja...
Click to expand...

They took the right decision on balance. Irrelevant to Powell's shooting though, because it's different just like every case.
 
@TenEightyOne You make it sound easy, but handling a gun in such situation isn't that easy or simple. Most shooters needs both hands & correct grip to hit stationary, non-verbal, non-confrontational & unarmed paper targets. By the time this man drops dead, he's right next to the police cruiser. In such proximity, follow up shots are pretty much a must. What if you miss with a taser? I know next to nothing about tasers, but do you even get a second shot with those things?(I honestly don't know)

Either way, I think asking the cops to juggle between a handgun & taser in such tight situation is unreasonable.
 
@a6m5 I do believe that tasers only have one shot at one single moment (since they fire a bunch of wires at once), but I don't know if they can be reloaded later with some time.
 
Not_A_Guest
@a6m5 I do believe that tasers only have one shot at one single moment (since they fire a bunch of wires at once), but I don't know if they can be reloaded later with some time.
Click to expand...
That's what I figured anyway. I know little bit about handguns, but not at all familiar with tasers.
 
I still do not understand why some African-Americans are defending Micheal Brown. Every bit of evidence is against him. The only maybe is that DNA on the officers shooting hand suggesting that the officer could have pistol-whipped Brown. I really think that Brown was trying to take the gun from the police officer and the police officer shot multiple times. That means that he was acting in self-defense because you won't just shoot one time if you panic. Also, his "witness" was not even credible. I am sick and tired of people of all races defending another person because he is black. An employee for Daniel Tosh (Tosh.0) was accidentally shot and killed recently. Is anyone bringing attention to him? Just because you are against a black criminal, or any criminal for that matter, does not mean you are a racist. You are simply on the right side. On another note, I feel sorry for the Brown parents for losing their son, even if he is convicted of robbery. It would be very depressing to lose a child.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-arrest-warrant-theft-busted-lying-cops.html

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/...tially-mention-the-convenience-store-robbery/
 
Last edited:
MisterWhiskers
I still do not understand why some African-Americans are defending Micheal Brown. Every bit of evidence is against him.
Click to expand...

Here are the facts as I've been able to source them, many "facts" are press-based conjecture after that.

Brown and Johnson robbed a box of cigars inside a store. The store-keeper tried to lock them in until they handed them back but didn't telephone the police. Brown became physically aggressive (and that's scary from such a big guy) and a fellow customer called the police. Brown and Johnson escaped the store, it's not clear if they took the Sweet Fags with them.

They walked along the centre of a road obstructing traffic and were apprehended by an officer who was unaware of the robbery report at that time, Brown was seated into the officer's vehicle (a pickup) and at some point a violent confrontation occured.

Brown escaped the vehicle and was grazed by shots as he ran away. Upon the grazing he turned back toward the officer and was fatally shot. (Tennessee .vs. Garner is the obvious go-to in this case, held by SCOTUS on appeal in 85 or 89 iirc).

The officer had demonstrable orbital damage after the event as proved by CT scans. Such injuries don't necessarily show externally. No external photographs of wounds are shown. The long video of the officer after the event shows no hint of his injury, he doesn't even unconsciously touch his face at any time.

My opinion?

Brown was a thug and a criminal, Johnson was a cleverer one. He committed a crime for sure, but the exact circumstances of the moment his shooting make it unlikely to my mind that the officer felt an immediate danger to his life. Certainly there has been no evidence from the FBI at this time that he did (they're handling the investigation).

I'm prepared to believe that the officer acted in his own human interest (a right I support without a moment's hesitation) but I fail to see that any solid evidence for that opinion has been presented at this time. Rather, this looks like there is at best a lack of transparency and at worst a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

I don't see a racial issue here unless it can be shown that the officer acted on a racial pre-disposition. I don't believe that has been shown to be the case.

For me white-on-black isn't the case here, it's the preparation of the police to use deadly force above all other options as a first-resort.

When one sees how much the Ferguson PD has spent on military-standard equipment one wonders if there's a problem with their penises, it does seem rather ludicrous.
 
Generally unlicensed minors are allowed to use firearms so long as they're under the immediate supervision of someone qualified. It's not just an American thing, minors are allowed to use guns here too under similar circumstances. If the Uzi was full auto it was a bad idea, but otherwise a 9mm isn't really anything out of control.
 
Last edited:
I read about that.

The only time a kid should ever fire a gun is the same time they can get their drivers license(15 or 16) and give them a low recoil weapon that can fire one bullet at a time.

At this age they should know the responsibilities of gun ownership and the dangers of using a gun, this way they are ready when they can get a gun at 21.

How about we give a 7 year old a desert eagle that fires .50cal bullets what could go wrong?
 
prisonermonkeys
A girl has accidentally shot dead an instructor at an Arizona firing range.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-...shoots-arizona-gun-instructor-in-head/5700202

Which begs the question: why was a nine year-old allowed to fire an Uzi, much less pne carrying live ammunition?
Click to expand...

I saw the video. The instructor never saw it coming. The Uzi went up and away towards his head.

I normally don't respond like this but this was funny as hell. Absolute Darwin Award material. For all adults involved who thought this was a good idea.

Girl scarred for life. That's the only sad part.
 
I've nothing against children being taught to use and respect guns where its a normal part of their family's job or lifestyle just as I've got nothing against children being allowed to drink a sensible amount of alcohol at a family dinner. I'd probably try not to combine the two, naturally.

In this case I simply don't understand why the girl was learning to shoot with an Uzi, surely that goes way beyond irresponsible?

Dennisch
Girl scarred for life. That's the only sad part.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this, a sad, heavy responsibility that I bet none of the parties had considered.
 
Grayfox
I read about that.

The only time a kid should ever fire a gun is the same time they can get their drivers license(15 or 16) and give them a low recoil weapon that can fire one bullet at a time.
Click to expand...
I first went hunting and shooting when I got my gun license at age 12. I think you're overestimating the dangers due to lack of experience.

I fully agree that this was irresponsible though. A full auto gun for a 9 year old is ridiculous, I don't know if she had any prior experience with guns but it would seem like she didn't, very poor decision making from the parents and instructor.
 
In principle I really don't see anything wrong with a nine-year-old firing an Uzi, given proper training and supervision. Watching that video, though, it appears to me the girl isn't terribly experienced handling firearms; I wonder if this may have been the first time she'd ever done so. In which case, it was definitely a bad idea; you'd no sooner start someone off with a fully automatic weapon than you'd start someone's driving lessons with a Le Mans LMP.
 
Gun owners are often times their own worst enemy.

Machine-pistols and Sub-machine guns are often considered the most difficult guns to shoot safely. If you've shot a handgun, you know how hard they are to keep pointed in a safe direction during shooting. That Uzi was automatic.

The idiot instructor gave the girl one, one! practice shot before switching her to automatic. Moron.

So this instructor inadvertently committing suicide has scarred a young girl and her family, and now the entire gun owning community has to deal with song, dance, and arm-flailing of media scrutiny.

I take issue with the stereotype of the gun-owner being a jingoistic cretin, but damn these people sure tend to be the ones to introduce the general population to firearms.

It's like a 'Murica vacation. Come on, Sally! Today we're going to shoot machine guns, eat burgers, and talk about how evil brown people are. America!

Go on YouTube and you'll see hundreds of videos of wanna-be SEALs in camo pants giving their 100lb girlfriend a Desert Eagle to have her first gun experience with. It's insane. This is what people think gun ownership is.

And every once in a while one of these idiots shoots their red white and blue balls off and then the media jumps all over it and soon the entire world thinks that American gun owners are like that. At the center of any one of these stories is an idiot with a gun.
 
I was trained to use a 9mm automatic weapon called an Owen, in automatic mode while walking through a firing range with "pop up" targets.

This was only after having been trained to use many other weapons in very controlled circumstances over a period of years.

I very quickly became aware that this automatic weapon was to be treated with the utmost caution, and was prone to become uncontrollable in incautious, untrained hands.

Not only can I not imagine myself putting a daughter (or son) of mine of such tender years in such a position of responsibility, I can't imagine why anyone would think it was a good idea.

EDIT:-

Andy Borowitz has his faux news story on this issue at http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/nation-debates-extremely-complex-issue-children-firing-military-weapons
 
Last edited:
People do stupid things all the time. Kids are sometimes put in positions that they aren't ready for and bad things happen. Let's not knee-jerk and start talking about changing laws just because some morons made a bad judgement call. Luckily it sounds like the only person that died was the dumbest.


(I have not read, nor do I intend to read, the story)
 
If your child wants a firearm, give them something relatively harmless like an air rifle, not a fully automatic submachine gun used in the Army and in gang warfare!

The attitude towards guns is completely different here than across the pond. Over here few people own firearms other than farmers and licensed members of rifle shooting clubs. You would never see a nine year old with a weapon like that. In America obviously it's a constitutional right, and I understand the argument that you need one for defence because everyone else has one. But in that case, get a basic pistol or six-shooter to be used for self defence if someone breaks into your house or whatever, but why people feel the needs to have closets full of assault rifles or train their pre-pubescent kids to use weapons like that is beyond me.
 
PeterJB
If your child wants a firearm, give them something relatively harmless like an air rifle, not a fully automatic submachine gun used in the Army and in gang warfare!
Click to expand...

There is a difference between what people shouldn't do and what should be illegal. People should not hand a 9 year old an uzi without proper training on a variety of firearms first. I don't think that we need to make it illegal to allow a 9 year old to use firearms and train appropriately just because some morons skipped about 1000 steps.

Edit:

It would be like making it illegal to put a 15 year in a dodge viper just because one started driving one with zero training and wrecked it.
 
I didn't necessarily say make it illegal, but I don't understand why any parent would think their nine year old with I love need arms training.

A Dodge Viper is different because it is not built with the sole intent of harming people. Guns are one of the most dangerous tools you can handle, so it's no wonder there will be serious accidents when you let children get their hands on them, even if they are supervised.
 
Noob616
****A full auto gun for a 9 year old is ridiculous, I don't know if she had any prior experience with guns but it would seem like she didn't, very poor decision making from the parents and instructor.
Click to expand...

I agree, the responsibility for this accident rests with the instructor and the parents.

A sad accident for the girl.:(

I've seen most of the video, and after the girl fires either one or two single shots, the instructor says "ok, lets try it on full-auto" and you can see him throwing the switch on the Uzi, and then the girl presses the trigger on full-auto. A little more practice with single shots or maybe limiting the magazine to 3-shot bursts would have been prudent.

The name of the gun range was: "Bullets and Burgers" which gave me a laugh.

I've seen an interview with the gun range owner, and he said that they were reviewing their safety rules around children firing automatic weapons. A wise move.👍 The age range had been: anyone 8 or older. I heard that it might get changed to 12 or older and the person would have to be 5 feet tall.

Respectfully,
GTsail
 
PeterJB
A Dodge Viper is different because it is not built with the sole intent of harming people. Guns are one of the most dangerous tools you can handle, so it's no wonder there will be serious accidents when you let children get their hands on them, even if they are supervised.
Click to expand...

Oh not one of these guys again...
 
I think one of two things occurred in the Uzi incident:

a) The girl pulled the trigger before the instructor was in a position to shadow her grip.
b) The girl recoiled in a way that was unexpected by the instructor and he was unable to correct it.

It's a crazy thing to happen, but is just an unfortunate accident.

@PeterJB - No, guns aren't just for shooting people. Also, have you ever seen a kid on a go-kart track? Perfectly normal thing to see children from 8 years old karting. You'll also occasionally see track marshals on the track clearing up an incident or helping a crashed driver. It wouldn't be impossible for a youngster in a kart to hit an instructor at speed and cause a fatal injury, but no one ever accuses go-karts of being lethal machines.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
436 437 438
Replies
13K
Views
570K
Fezzik
Fezzik
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
432 433 434
Replies
13K
Views
670K
Max_HP
Max_HP
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
640
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back