Ferguson, MO

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KDCat

Darion Johnson and Darren Wilson are the only two people who saw the whole thing.

The other witnesses corroborate both of their stories. They are all over the place. It's not an either/or.

This is really a swearing contest between Wilson and Johnson.

And that is exactly what I meant when I said you can't put all your faith in trust in the testimonies in this case. What is telling is the evidence.

Originally Posted by KDCat

Pot doesn't make people charge cops with their head down.

Not sure what you are getting at but someone putting their head down when charging at something is not uncommon at all.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

After watching The View, some of the biggest things to come from this:

1. Police need cameras and recorders on uniforms to protect themselves and the public at all times.

2. The public needs to know more about law enforcement training and the policies regarding use of "force", use of "deadly force", and firearm use. Most states have this information available online. This also highlights why officers cannot shoot to warn or injure, as depicted on shows like Criminal Minds.

3. Not all officers have tasers and not all members of the public agree with the use of tasers. We can't have it both ways. Either pepper spray, taser, baton(?), or gun. Some police departments carry multiple methods. That doesn't mean they will have access to every method during a physical altercation. I don't want an officer dying because the officer couldn't access the taser during an altercation and was afraid to use the police gun.

1. I'm a supporter of body cameras and recorders. I have several peers that have their own that they bring to work with them even though their agency doesn't mandate cameras or recorders. It's a great CYA measure in cases of false accusations or reports of misconduct. A lot of officers and unions are against body cams for fear that they will be used by management against officers for petty reasons (I.E. unauthorized smoke break or sitting down for a lunch) as well as privacy issues. Everything recorded should be subject to FOIA so the idea of someone requesting my recorder footage of a non incident day creeps me out but if at the end of the day it saves my career and reputation I feel it's worth it.

2. I'm not holding my breath that the public will self educate themselves on this. The things that people think the police can or can't do sometimes scare me, other times it just makes me laugh. As I've said, as long as we have the entertainment industry churning out cop dramas and action movies people will continue to be misinformed.

3. Tasers were brought onto the scene as being the magic less than deadly force solution for law enforcement but it hasn't been the case. There have been deaths and serious injuries resulting in taser use, and on the opposite spectrum I've seen police videos where a suspect is tased 6-7 times and is still up and fighting with police. There are also a lot of rules of when and not to use a taser. Just a few months ago my agency changed the taser policy so it's advised not to use the taser while the subject is standing on a hard surface or in the position to fall down and hit his head on something, so that itself is quite limiting.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

And that is exactly what I meant when I said you can't put all your faith in trust in the testimonies in this case. What is telling is the evidence.


Not sure what you are getting at but someone putting their head down when charging at something is not uncommon at all.



1. I'm a supporter of body cameras and recorders. I have several peers that have their own that they bring to work with them even though their agency doesn't mandate cameras or recorders. It's a great CYA measure in cases of false accusations or reports of misconduct. A lot of officers and unions are against body cams for fear that they will be used by management against officers for petty reasons (I.E. unauthorized smoke break or sitting down for a lunch) as well as privacy issues. Everything recorded should be subject to FOIA so the idea of someone requesting my recorder footage of a non incident day creeps me out but if at the end of the day it saves my career and reputation I feel it's worth it.

2. I'm not holding my breath that the public will self educate themselves on this. The things that people think the police can or can't do sometimes scare me, other times it just makes me laugh. As I've said, as long as we have the entertainment industry churning out cop dramas and action movies people will continue to be misinformed.

3. Tasers were brought onto the scene as being the magic less than deadly force solution for law enforcement but it hasn't been the case. There have been deaths and serious injuries resulting in taser use, and on the opposite spectrum I've seen police videos where a suspect is tased 6-7 times and is still up and fighting with police. There are also a lot of rules of when and not to use a taser. Just a few months ago my agency changed the taser policy so it's advised not to use the taser while the subject is standing on a hard surface or in the position to fall down and hit his head on something, so that itself is quite limiting.

Exactly.

Like you said, tasers aren't 100%. They sometimes result in death. Some suspects aren't stopped through taser (that includes suspects on "bath salts," etc.).

This is all way more complex than most people in the public recognize. That complexity doesn't mean officers are never in the wrong. That complexity doesn't mean officers don't respond differently based on factors such as gender, race, etc. It means that we don't always know what happened and we don't always know who was in the "wrong".

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Exactly.

Like you said, tasers aren't 100%. They sometimes result in death. Some suspects aren't stopped through taser (that includes suspects on "bath salts," etc.).

This is all way more complex than most people in the public recognize. That complexity doesn't mean officers are never in the wrong. That complexity doesn't mean officers don't respond differently based on factors such as gender, race, etc. It means that we don't always know what happened and we don't always know who was in the "wrong".

Tasers aren't 100% but they are MUCH safer than handguns. They cause fewer deaths that guns or physical take-downs of suspects. The use of tasers results in fewer injuries to officers and to arrestees as the result of physical altercations. They can be abused, but so can many other police tactics.

[DrPhil]

The point is that tasers are not always the savior for suspects and officers. People who believe they are a 100% alternative need to know that. Not every law enforcement officer and member of public has faith in tasers.

[Tom Earp]

Have any of you been in a COPs shoes? COPs are trained to shoot at the mass=biggest part of the body. TV in the leg and shoulder is true B S!

Not all COPs are supplied with tasers or body cams because they cannot afford it.

I was never trained to profile anyone, just the ones that broe the law.

Many of you want to talk the talk but have walked the walk.

Second guessing is easy or spouting stuff is easy.

Now the folks of Ferguson are looking at what is left for them now!

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Have any of you been in a COPs shoes? COPs are trained to shoot at the mass=biggest part of the body. TV in the leg and shoulder is true B S!

Not all COPs are supplied with tasers or body cams because they cannot afford it.

I was never trained to profile anyone, just the ones that broe the law.

Many of you want to talk the talk but have walked the walk.

Second guessing is easy or spouting stuff is easy.

Now the folks of Ferguson are looking at what is left for them now!

Happy Thanksgiving, Tom!

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

And that is exactly what I meant when I said you can't put all your faith in trust in the testimonies in this case. What is telling is the evidence.

Physical evidence is great, but it only goes so far. It can tell us that Brown was shot in the hand by the wound on his hand. It can tell us that something happened at the car because Brown's blood was in the car and on the gun. It can tell us that Wilson was in a struggle because he had a bruise on his face. It can tell us that Brown was facing Wilson when he was killed because the entrance/exit wounds are consistent with Brown facing Wilson.

It doesn't tell us whether Brown grabbed for Wilson's gun. It doesn't tell us whether Brown was charging Wilson or not when he was shot. For those determinations, you have to choose Wilson's testimony or Johnson's testimony.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KDCat

Physical evidence is great, but it only goes so far. It can tell us that Brown was shot in the hand by the wound on his hand. It can tell us that something happened at the car because Brown's blood was in the car and on the gun. It can tell us that Wilson was in a struggle because he had a bruise on his face. It can tell us that Brown was facing Wilson when he was killed because the entrance/exit wounds are consistent with Brown facing Wilson.

It doesn't tell us whether Brown grabbed for Wilson's gun. It doesn't tell us whether Brown was charging Wilson or not when he was shot. For those determinations, you have to choose Wilson's testimony or Johnson's testimony.

You don't HAVE to choose either testimony. There were several other witness testimonies and I would think all of the testimonies, no matter how contradictory, would be weighted along side the physical evidence. I don't understand why you want to take Johnsons testimony alone as the gospel.
Once again I ask this question- Wasn't Johnson (the friend) the one who initially told investigators and reporters that Wilson shot Brown in the back while Brown was running away? If so, that would really make me question the accuracy of his GJ testimony.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

You don't HAVE to choose either testimony. There were several other witness testimonies and I would think all of the testimonies, no matter how contradictory, would be weighted along side the physical evidence. I don't understand why you want to take Johnsons testimony alone as the gospel.
Once again I ask this question- Wasn't Johnson (the friend) the one who initially told investigators and reporters that Wilson shot Brown in the back while Brown was running away? If so, that would really make me question the accuracy of his GJ testimony.

No, he wasn't. Tons of people said tons of stuff, but Johnson's story was consistent from the start. He told the same story to the papers that he told at the grand jury.

I'm not taking Johnson's testimony as "gospel." I'm taking it as the truth because having read both Johnson's testimony and Wilson's testimony, and having knowledge of the local police culture, and the local community, I found Johnson more credible.

Unfortunately, as you appear to be a member of law enforcement, I understand completely why you are defending Wilson.