Ferguson Missouri | Page 13 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ferguson Missouri

Subenz said:
The medical report stated he had 45 nanograms of THC/ml in his blood at the time of autopsy. (pot)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-documents/

36.7 nano grams of THC is enough to get someone "baked enough to think that turning the [driving] test into a real-life version of Mario Cart would be a good idea". (regular smoker)

So you can't really look at this from the viewpoint of rational thinking on Browns part.

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2013/02/cnn_high_driving_test_shows_five_nanogram_thc_limi.php
Click to expand...



i think i can answer this question with expertise in THC content . lol

it doesnt make you violent. ever.


drugs has nothing to do with this
 
A Liberal's version of the Story...

the_liberal_media_s_view_on_mike_brown_and_darren_wilson_big.jpg
 
Macs said:
The dispatcher is at fault on that one. The info related to the cops is "black male brandishing handgun".

Do I question the wisdom of the cop driving? Hell yes, but the cop that shot the kid, nope.
Click to expand...

And the 'handgun' (Airsoft?) didn't have the common orange barrel tip that would identify it as something other than a real weapon. I don't fault police for not being able to identify something as not being a firearm, when every effort has been taken to make it look like a firearm. I do, however, fault them for incredibly stupid tactics that are virtually guaranteed to result in a death. I doubt that there was no discussion in that cruiser about how they were going to handle the situation.
 
Sativa Quemador said:
i think i can answer this question with expertise in THC content . lol

it doesnt make you violent. ever.


drugs has nothing to do with this
Click to expand...


Oh I wasn't saying it made him violent, I was saying that he was pretty high at the least so you can't apply rational thinking to someone who is under the influence. You have to look at it from a skewed perspective.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
And the 'handgun' (Airsoft?) didn't have the common orange barrel tip that would identify it as something other than a real weapon. I don't fault police for not being able to identify something as not being a firearm, when every effort has been taken to make it look like a firearm. I do, however, fault them for incredibly stupid tactics that are virtually guaranteed to result in a death. I doubt that there was no discussion in that cruiser about how they were going to handle the situation.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of the driving officer was "shock and awe" to get the kid to be scared and immediately surrender, unfortunately he wasn't that smart.
 
Macs said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of the driving officer was "shock and awe" to get the kid to be scared and immediately surrender, unfortunately he wasn't that smart.
Click to expand...

Do you think the kid's intent was to pull out his gun and shoot the cop?
 
I'm not even sure it's a matter of them being horrible people - for one reason or another, cops learn to behave this way. Maybe part training, maybe part existing work culture.
 
Macs said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of the driving officer was "shock and awe" to get the kid to be scared and immediately surrender, unfortunately he wasn't that smart.
Click to expand...

Watch the video. There was no time to surrender and no time for them to even shout, "Drop the gun!" unless it was done while pulling the trigger.
 
"drop it drop it drop it!!! BANG BANG"

I could see how they might have yelled something three times really quickly as they rolled up... but it makes no difference.
 
mmmnaked said:
"drop it drop it drop it!!! BANG BANG"

I could see how they might have yelled something three times really quickly as they rolled up... but it makes no difference.
Click to expand...

The officer then obviously misinterpreted the kid's actions (whatever they were) as offensive/aggressive, when obviously a 12 year old with a BB gun isn't going to try to shoot at a cop. Maybe he lifted his shirt to show that the gun wasn't real, whatever. Because they were so close to each other the way the cruiser pulled up, there was no time for the officer to accurately assess the situation.
 
I don't think being 20 feet away would make a difference... bullets travel quickly. If he had a reason (in his mind) to shoot him from 5 feet away, he would've shot him from 20 just as well. Except he'd probably miss, so there's that. I suppose the close encounter added a level of intensity to the situation though. Not a good cop.


"when obviously a 12 year old with a BB gun isn't going to try to shoot at a cop."


Obvious to us, now.
 
mmmnaked said:
I don't think being 20 feet away would make a difference... bullets travel quickly. If he had a reason (in his mind) to shoot him from 5 feet away, he would've shot him from 20 just as well. Except he'd probably miss, so there's that. I suppose the close encounter added a level of intensity to the situation though. Not a good cop.


"when obviously a 12 year old with a BB gun isn't going to try to shoot at a cop."


Obvious to us, now.
Click to expand...

The difference being that if they had pulled up on the road instead of the grass and then exited the car appropriately, they would have had a chance of diffusing the situation (whether a real firearm was involved or not). By pulling up within arm's reach of the kid the officer only had one choice; shoot to kill. There was no time for anything else.
 
Had they pulled up 15' away and the kid made the exact same motion into his waistband, how would they have had "more time" to do something different? He's still (in the cop's mind) reaching for a gun that will fire a bullet at 1000+ feet per second at them... I fail to see how more distance = more time, unless they're well outside of effective handgun range. Stop the car 100' away and yell, maybe... I'd probably have chosen that route myself.
 
mmmnaked said:
Had they pulled up 15' away and the kid made the exact same motion into his waistband, how would they have had "more time" to do something different? He's still (in the cop's mind) reaching for a gun that will fire a bullet at 1000+ feet per second at them... I fail to see how more distance = more time, unless they're well outside of effective handgun range. Stop the car 100' away and yell, maybe... I'd probably have chosen that route myself.
Click to expand...

Pulling up right next to him means that you're in physical confrontation range. You can pretty much 'reach out and hurt someone.' Fifteen feet is still too close for initial contact. You want 20+ feet with intervening cover (ie. the cruiser). This is for the officers' own safety. Despite what movies and role playing games tell us, you can't actually dodge a bullet. Hell, you can't even really dodge an arrow or crossbow bolt at close range. Cover is your friend. If the gun had been real, that cop could have been really dead.
 
Sativa Quemador said:
this might just be the straw that broke the camels back.

this isnt just a color thing.. its a "lets stand up against the worst gang there is... the cops. "

this kid may have been innocent, or may not, the problem is that this happens far too often to lo0ts of different people.
Click to expand...


Called it a month ago.

2 nypd taken out .. now maybe this one...

Its just starting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom