So Boerd said
Before I waste my time finding them for you, if I prove they are facts, would you cease maintaining Brown's innocence? Based on everything I have said, if my facts are accurate, will you admit my version to be more likely?

I think that he means a thing call, LINKS. Links to sites where they state the facts, that you said.

---

Onto the topic, I have no issues with the cops and why they're getting the military grade stuff is because, they are to use it against anyone that has a gun or is doing a terrorist actions. I think that those black people are out of control and they're looking for some trouble and they found it in Ferguson, sadly. Thankfully, the national guard is coming and they'll end the madness. I mean, police brutality is bad and all, but they must have a reason why the officer attacked the person. They have a weapon or they were acting crazy and being dumbasses

So Boerd said
Before I waste my time finding them for you, if I prove they are facts, would you cease maintaining Brown's innocence? Based on everything I have said, if my facts are accurate, will you admit my version to be more likely?

If you have solid evidence than i'll be forced to believe that Michael isn't innocent, but even so that doesn't justify the actions of the cop. He shot an unarmed man and if you really believe it wasn't a racial thing than there nothing I can do.

I feel like i've gone off track. If you believe the cops actions were right than I have nothing more to say.

Rare said
I think that he means a thing call, LINKS. Links to sites where they state the facts, that you said. Onto the topic, I have no issues with the cops and why they're getting the military grade stuff is because, they are to use it against anyone that has a gun or is doing a terrorist actions. I think that those black people are out of control and they're looking for some trouble and they found it in Ferguson, sadly. Thankfully, the national guard is coming and they'll end the madness.

I am not going to track down the myriad links until he accepts the argument flows logically from the premises. Only then willI prove the premises.

Thundercat said
If you have solid evidence than i'll be forced to believe that Michael isn't innocent, but even so that doesn't justify the actions of the cop. He shot an unarmed man and if you really believe it wasn't a racial thing than there nothing I can do.I feel like i've gone off track. If you believe the cops actions were right than I have nothing more to say.

Thank you for being frank and honest. I could go on, but I think I am done.

Rare said
I think that he means a thing call, LINKS. Links to sites where they state the facts, that you said. Onto the topic, I have no issues with the cops and why they're getting the military grade stuff is because, they are to use it against anyone that has a gun or is doing a terrorist actions. I think that those black people are out of control and they're looking for some trouble and they found it in Ferguson, sadly. Thankfully, the national guard is coming and they'll end the madness. I mean, police brutality is bad and all, but they must have a reason why the officer attacked the person. They have a weapon or they were acting crazy and being dumbasses

If you seriously think the police are using their military gear against potential terrorists then you are extremely misguided.

Military-grade hardware is not required to deal with armed civilians. If there are no terrorists, who do you think they're going to use this gear on?

For fuck's sake the guys in Ferguson are more kitted out than the soldiers who invaded Iraq.

ASTA said
If you seriously think the police are using their military gear against potential terrorists then you are extremely misguided.Military-grade hardware is not required to deal with armed civilians. If there are no terrorists, who do you think they're going to use this gear on? For fuck's sake the guys in Ferguson are more kitted out than the .

Well for one, I also know that the police are using Military grade stuff, because the protests are out of control and they are going crazy. The police use these things for good and bad reasons, but mostly for good. Without them, alot of people would be killing and robbing stores. The only reason why they have military grade stuff is to scare the public and it worked greatly.

Be greatful for the government's spending on military defenses and giving some to the police, without them, the country would be in a second revolutionary or civil war.

Rare said Be greatful for the government's spending on military defenses and giving some to the police, without them, the country would be in a second revolutionary or civil war.

No we wouldn't. The only reason we're giving our mil-spec gear to the police is because to do otherwise would be a gigantic waste of money. It's not a matter of security, it's a simple equipment cost and capability. The Army uses effective gear, cops need effective gear, ergo when the Army doesn't need it anymore, it makes perfect sense for the cops to pick it up.

The counterterrorism guys have their own weapons, and it's nicer than what the army (or the cops now) get to play with. Does the federal government distribute weapons for political purposes, yes, but only to drug cartels.

Thundercat said
He shot an unarmed man

To be fair, he shot a charging, 6'4" 250+ lb muscly man, who had not a minute prior punched him in the face in the altercation in the car.

ASTA said
If you seriously think the police are using their military gear against potential terrorists then you are extremely misguided.Military-grade hardware is not required to deal with armed civilians. If there are no terrorists, who do you think they're going to use this gear on? For fuck's sake the guys in Ferguson are more kitted out than the .

Without air or armor support. Don't see Ferguson cops with F-22s.

Brovo said
Do you want to go up against a military that has over one trillion dollars and enough firepower stockpiled to level a small country with, at best, an assault rifle, a boot, and coarse language?

Level a small country? A single Kennedy Class Aircraft Carrier has the power to win a war with over half of the countries in the world by itself, we have the military power to devastate continents.

Edit: Didn't notice there were five pages.

Guilty Spark said
Level a small country? A single Kennedy Class Aircraft Carrier has the power to win a war with over half of the countries in the world by itself, we have the military power to devastate continents.Edit: Didn't notice there were five pages.

It's fine. Nothing of any remarkable intelligence has occurred over the past few pages so I haven't bothered.

Facts
-- No gunshot residue indicates the shots were medium range or greater.
--There are varying eye witness accounts.
--The head shots were likely execution moves. (Officers should aim not to kill, but disable. The order to kill is only if their life is directly threatened and Brown held no ranged weapon on his person. Combined with the lack of residue this is indicative of either ridiculous incompetence or insane callousness.)
--The early protests turned violent. (Throwing objects at police officers counts as violence. Don't even play dumb.)
--State Troopers managed to calm the protestors down a little, but there's still sporadic violence.
--Rampant looting is occurring which the protests are inevitable protecting, whether or not they wish to is irrelevant to that fact.
--Reporters were roughed up and arrested by the police. In combination with the shitty firing protocol, this is indicative of further massive incompetence on the part of the local police.

tl;dr: This entire situation is massively overblown and the media are blowing it up even further to get views. That's what they do. That is their job.

The simple fact of the matter is this: We don't know the precise details and we likely never will. The evidence that is there indicates that the officer should at least be taken down until this situation is resolved. The protests need to stop and something more productive take their place. People need to behave rationally rather than emotionally to resolve this. Except that won't happen, and I know it won't, but I can amuse myself and keep watching in the dim hope that maybe, just maybe, somewhere, in that mob and amongst the police, a brain cell will fire, telling them that they should, I dunno, cooperate more.

Like the state troopers marching amongst the protestors. That is an example of a brain cell firing.

Good luck seeing that happen enough times to actually have something productive come of this now.

Brovo said
--The head shots were likely execution moves. (Officers should aim not to kill, but disable. The order to kill is only if their life is directly threatened and Brown held no ranged weapon on his person. Combined with the lack of residue this is indicative of either ridiculous incompetence or insane callousness.)

I have to disagree here, on three points. First, speculation on an event is not a fact.

Second, the residue. Residue is only deposited at very close range(sub 1.5/2 feet) directly in front of the muzzle. The range group is so wide as to make the lack of residue only an indicator that the gun was not right next to Brown when he was killed(And also further serves to illustrate that there was likely a struggle for the weapon in the car considering the gun could not have been pointed at Brown when it went off.)

Finally, in a self defense scenario, with adrenaline pumping(and also having just been hit in the head), the line of thought is not, "Alright, he is running at me, I will now aim for the legs, alright, pulling trigger now, bam, bam, that'll stop him." It is much closer to, "Shit! I am now shooting! He's still coming, shoot shoot shoot! Alright he's down." Aiming a handgun to put multiple rounds quickly and accurately on target is somewhat difficult, and is made no easier by the conditions the officer was placed in during the event.

I do, however, agree cessation of rioting and protesting, and an increase in co-operation is going to be necessary to help this situation be resolved.

I'm in the temperance and calmness camp on this issue for now, as there are more autopsies to be done and there is more information to be released, BUT I will speak up as to the "Officers should aim not to kill, but to disable" thought.

This is, sadly, absolutely untrue. A gun is not a weapon to disable a person with. A gun is a weapon to stop (i.e. kill) a person with. Police officers are trained to discharge their firearms only to kill, in fact, as doing anything else is irresponsible (any shot not to center mass is much more likely to miss and cause unwanted injury to nearby civilians), and will likely get you killed in a realistic dangerous situation.

Zendric's hypothetical is entirely correct. An officer in fear for her/his life will shoot to kill, 100 times out of 100. They may not succeed in doing so, the person may survive the shots, they may miss completely, but if an officer is firing live rounds, it is always with the intent to stop someone.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, but the reality is, firearms are incredibly difficult for even a trained person to aim correctly in a realistic self-defense situation. "Shooting to wound" is unreliable and dangerous for everyone involved, simple as that.

Also, link. Not the original place I read about this, but it's talking about (EDIT: one of) the article(s) I read.

Brovo, what was Michael Brown doing while the first four bullets hit his arms? Why didn't he turn and run?

So Boerd said
Brovo, what was Michael Brown doing while the first four bullets hit his arms? Why didn't he turn and run?

To be fair, most people, when they're shot four times, fall over screaming and bleed to death.

@zendric

1: Ergo prefacing likely. Point granted anyway.

2: if they were struggling for the firearm, that is point blank range. Ignoring everything else, you're telling me six shots at point blank including two guaranteed kill shots to the head would leave behind no residue? And that two of those panic fire shots are head shots? And there's no fingerprints from Brown on the firearm last I checked?

3: Is that how cops operate in the states? Frightening. Here in Canada they are trained to use nonlethal where possible, even with firearms, because we want our criminals alive to face a court of law. Mainly to avoid shit like this. Guess I still have a lot to learn about the united states.

@MDK: yup. Generally speaking someone shot four times will be reduced to a blithering blubbery mass of blood and shock. Especially since the person in question is a civilian with no notable physical achievements on record.

To clarify before starting, all I know about this case is the links provided in the OP and having skimmed through the posts in this thread.

The main question here seems to be whose at fault, what went wrong?

Seeing how this all started with a boy getting shot by police let's start there.
But I'll say right now I'm not paying any attention to the kids skin colour, or to how friends refer to him as a good boy. What should matter is the actions that happened at the scene, not how the kid was outside of the situation or what skin colour the kid had.

From what I gather the boy was surrendering after robbing a store, but ran at the officer?
If so... If you just run at an officer with a gun you're going to get shot, they have no way to know if you intend to be peaceful or not. May the kid have made poor judgement or not, you can't exactly blame the officer for shooting if he was being charged at. Though also being Canadian I'll voice a similliar concern/confusion that Brovo did, the Cop should of aimed for non-lethal shots. Now, panic happens, accidents happen. But this did not seem like a case where the officer could get away with purposely aiming for lethal shots.

But then there's the protests that sparked as a result. Now, I think the whole "Black racism" claim the protest is doing is just idiotic, the kid charged at an officer and got shot. That kid happened to be black, that doesn't make it a hate crime, that makes it a kid who just happens to be black made a poor decision. And before anyone argues this happens to black kids more often, that is true. But also note that the poor/bad neighborhood's tend to have more black people than other places do. So obviously if more black people are exposed to shitty environments, more of them will resort to crime, resulting in more cases with police. This is not a racist officer issue, but rather an issue of how children are led to crime by poor environment and upbringing.

The protests themselves? A protest needs a cause, a point, one that will improve things. Simply trying to piss off the cops is not a legit protest... and if you're purposely stopping cops from doing their job, and yelling at them because you hate cops... That's not exactly a peaceful protest, that's causing a ruckus. And if while doing this other people are robbing stores and you are consciously stopping the cops from stopping the thief... you are now an accomplice to the theft. You are no longer doing a peaceful protest, you are committing a crime and are logically subject to the same punishment in accordance to law as the thief you were just covering for.

So I also really have no sympathy for those who took advantage of this incident to give police shit and/or to burn and rob shops.
And since the investigation of the original shooting is still ongoing, that means no one has enough info to determine if the cop was at fault or not so I can't really make a final statement either. I can only say that if the boy really did charge at the cop, no one should be surprised that the trigger was pulled.

Brovo said
2: if they were struggling for the firearm, that is point blank range. Ignoring everything else, you're telling me six shots at point blank including two guaranteed kill shots to the head would leave behind no residue? And that two of those panic fire shots are head shots? And there's no fingerprints from Brown on the firearm last I checked?

I didn't mean to imply that all of the shots occurred at point blank range, just to illustrate that, aside from the single shot inside the car, all of the other shots occurred at an incredible range of distances. He could have been anywhere from 2 feet to 1000 feet(potentially even further) away from the officer when he got shot. Also, from what I've heard only one of the headshots was fatal, and there are a many situations where a struggle for a gun has only one person's hands on the weapon.

Brovo said
3: Is that how cops operate in the states? Frightening. Here in Canada they are trained to use nonlethal where possible, even with firearms, because we want our criminals alive to face a court of law. Mainly to avoid shit like this. Guess I still have a lot to learn about the united states.

Magic Magnum said
Though also being Canadian I'll voice a similliar concern/confusion that Brovo did, the Cop should of aimed for non-lethal shots. Now, panic happens, accidents happen. But this did not seem like a case where the officer could get away with purposely aiming for lethal shots.

It indeed would be nice if one could target for non-lethality in all cases, but it doesnt always turn out that way. I don't know if this officer was an incredible marksman, or only attended the required departmental training shoots, but in either case you have to think of aiming a firearm, especially a handgun in an adrenaline filled scenario, as a cone of fire. The slightest twitch, from a shaky hand to your heart pumping blood through your hands, can angle the barrel a couple degrees in any direction from where you are aiming at, and over a distance even as short as 30 feet it can matter, throwing the bullet off many inches. Thats why you aim AT the target in general, not at the target's _____, so you can guarantee that you hit the target somewhere and stop them.

That's why you aim at center mass. That's why the concept of center mass exists, and why bulletproof vests are at least somewhat effective. Also, another link.

Please read it, you two. It's talking about a law in the states, sure, but the concept still applies (I'll try to find something from Canada). Also, I will accept your opinions on how difficult it is to shoot a gun (in Canada, Germany, Niger or otherwise) once you've both joined the police and gone through basic firearm training. The reality is, if you aim to wound in a dangerous situation, your chances of death (EDIT: and the accidental death of others) increase exponentially. I would be willing to bet money a Canadian cop will tell you the same.

EDIT: The point becomes, "should the cop have shot at all?", not "why didn't he just wound the kid?"

Was Michael Brown dangerous enough for the officer to discharge his firearm? He certainly must have thought so. That's the "crime" in this case. A police officer creates a situation with an unarmed young man, the young man is momentarily uncooperative, and not long afterwards, the young man is dead on the street. If either of them had handled things differently, he'd still be alive. This is an absolute tragedy, for everyone involved.

mdk said
To be fair, most people, when they're shot four times, fall over screaming and bleed to death.

In your arms? People break hands and arms all the time (the genesis of bullet pain in a limb is the broken bone) in fights and then run off. The maximum rate of a beretta (vaguely aimed shots) is about 90 rpm. Meaning he had around 3 seconds to react before the eye shot