Ferguson, MO

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

If my GC memory serves me correctly, yes. Max has been banned many more times than "dude."

That is the problem that has been highlighted over and over in the news reports today. Not once have I heard an explanation of what happened to make Wilson feel it was necessary to shoot to kill. The first two shots were at close range--what merited use of a gun instead of a taser? After that, why not shoot for the leg or wherever else--why were kill shots to the head necessary? He was large and aggressive and threatening so you had to kill him before he...bumrushed you with no weapon?

1. Wilson didn't have a taser.
2. Police arent trained to shoot at legs, or shoot guns out of people's hands, or shoot car tires or any other Hollywood TV stuff that you see.
3. According to Wilsons testimony Brown was going for his gun while he was in his cruiser. Evidence in the form of Browns blood on Wilsons gun supports his account.
4. I feel like people think the only way this should have turned out was Brown getting Wilsons gun then using it to kill Wilson.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

1. Wilson didn't have a taser.
2. Police arent trained to shoot at legs, or shoot guns out of people's hands, or shoot car tires or any other Hollywood TV stuff that you see.

Exactly.

Trust, there would be more criticisms of law enforcement if they were trained to do the things depicted by Hollywood. More people would accuse them of unlawful and unnecessary use of force and firearms if they could shoot people in the leg. Instead, we want officers to remain well-trained and selective in their use of a firearm; and we want that use of a firearm to be precisely for its intended purpose.