• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ferguson: Police Kill 18yo Black Male; Fire Gas/Rubber Bullets Into Protesting Crowds

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone seems to love reaching for a weapon when cops point guns at them...

That story is just sickening

To be quite honest, my first reaction if I'm in a tussle and someone reaches for a gun would be to push their hand away from me. This could be interpreted as "reaching for the gun", but no...I'm just trying to keep the gun muzzle from pointing at me. Similar motion, very different intent.

Best solution: don't point a fucking gun at people within arm's reach. People will react to protect themselves.
 
They can start by not shooting innocent people standing in the area, including other cops.

Maybe not fire so indiscriminately that they not only shoot the suspect, but also a fellow cop and kill an innocent woman?

He shouldn't have a gun if he can't aim/handle it properly in a situation. But the act of shooting at a drunk waving a gun seems justified to me. That's a question of competence, not one of right and wrong. We also know nothing of the specific situation.
 
So what should cops do to subdue an belligerent drunk waving a gun around?

I'd blame the gun laws that allow people to have handguns in the first place, not the cops.

This would be a non story if the cop had just shot the suspect. Hopefully once, since he wasn't being fired back at. The cop only escalated the situation and got innocent people killed and hurt. They are paid, and presumably trained, to protect and serve the innocent. Not to kill bad guys.
 
He shouldn't have a gun if he can't aim/handle it properly in a situation. But the act of shooting at a drunk waving a gun seems justified to me. That's a question of competence, not one of right and wrong. We also know nothing of the specific situation.

Cops shouldn't shoot innocent bystanders, end of fucking story. No one who places utmost importance on human life gives a fuck how "understandable" the officer's mistakes were.

Tell me how a cop killing an innocent bystander is in any way acceptable.
 
He shouldn't have a gun if he can't aim/handle it properly in a situation. But the act of shooting at a drunk waving a gun seems justified to me. That's a question of competence, not one of right and wrong. We also know nothing of the specific situation.

An innocent bystander was killed and another cop was shot from an officer firing indiscriminately (to which he still did not kill his target), but we don't know anything about the specific situation?
 
Cops shouldn't shoot innocent bystanders, end of fucking story. No one who places utmost importance on human life gives a fuck how "understandable" the officer's mistakes were.

Tell me how a cop killing an innocent bystander is in any way acceptable.

Again, we know virtually no details. Where was the bystander? Was this a shot through a wall? Was the drunk apparently about to shoot?

I'm not advocating blind-fire into crowds. And an officer who can't keep his cool and/or aim is indeed at fault. But we don't know that that''s what happened yet, unless there's some source I missed.

If you can't conceive of a reasonable way that this could be a justifiable accident while having the best intentions, then you are biased off the bat.

And I'm not a random "not all cops" guy, I just think it's ridiculous the response with so few details.
 
Revised-- we did know how many times he shot, and we know they tried a taser first.

I guess what we don't know if where people were or how the victim was struck.
 
Like, where everyone was positioned, how many shots fired and how quickly, etc.

According to someone that listened to the 911 call, you can hear 9 shots in approximately 2 seconds. Haven't listened to it myself, so take that with a grain of salt. Nine shots is confirmed though. No excuse for shooting 9 times at someone that wasnt firing back. And you shouldn't shoot into a crowded situation unless you were fired upon first.
 
My question is how is it that you still have people defending the officers in Ferguson when time and time again they show that they care nothing about the law and only a display of power.

It's not that hard to imagine that Darren killed MB in cold blood when we see exactly how his brothers in blue treat even journalists let alone a black man.

Get out of here with all that logic and making sense.
 
According to someone that listened to the 911 call, you can hear 9 shots in approximately 2 seconds. Haven't listened to it myself, so take that with a grain of salt. Nine shots is confirmed though. No excuse for shooting 9 times at someone that wasnt firing back. And you shouldn't shoot into a crowded situation unless you were fired upon first.
They're trained to empty the clip.
 
My question is how is it that you still have people defending the officers in Ferguson when time and time again they show that they care nothing about the law and only a display of power.

It's not that hard to imagine that Darren killed MB in cold blood when we see exactly how his brothers in blue treat even journalists let alone a black man.

I am interpreting what you are saying as: The officers in Ferguson have shown they care about displaying power over enforcing the law. Since Dareen's brothers in blue act that way, Darren probably did the same.

Fallacy of division

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

I have heard the citizens in Ferguson say that even they didn't think all the cops were bad. So clearly there are some cops that are turds and others that aren't.

Get out of here with all that logic and making sense.

Yea. Fallacious logic.

To be clear, I am not siding with Darren. I am just saying the logic used in this specific argument is flawed in my eyes.
 
So will the new thread keep the same title or will it be updated to reflect the decision for a Grand Jury and police militarization?
 
Hmmmm... Out of curiosity what are the arguments against them?

I posted this a couple days ago in the thread:

Primarily, it brings up the question of when these cameras are allowed to be turned off, or the variability of cops saying they "malfunctioned". For instance, when an officer is talking to a confidential informant or another sensitive source, are they allowed to turn it off? What about when they are talking to a vulnerable victim of something like sexual assault? Should that entire conversation be video taped? If you allow discretion for the cops so that they can turn it on and off when they feel the need, what's to say that they won't only have it on when it is at their advantage to do so?

Who gets to watch the tapes? Who gets to access them? If the police often can't even be trusted to do basic things, do we trust these same people to safely store possibly sensitive footage?

That's what I mean when I say murky. It just seems like it is something that needs to be eased into, and isn't just a catch-all remedy for preventing police abuse.

I do think we at least need to get cameras on our weaponized riot police at all times. The people in these situations where they could easily kill or injure another person. And I think that in certain tense and problematic areas of social or racial tension such as Ferguson, that it would be a possible option to pave the way to improved police-citizen relations. But in my opinion, to say that ALL cops at all times EVERYWHERE should have to wear a camera seems a bit naive and sort of misses the other things that cops actually do.

Just my opinion though.
 
Can't believe we will soon be hitting the 20k post limit.

Because stats are fun....

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=871547

Dz8n0G1.png
 
The only source I've seen for the orbital blowout was unnamed sources in a story on a right-wing site.

I'll believe it when there's evidence of it.

Same here. Given Wilson's reactions after the shooting from the witnesses video, it appears he's fine. Wouldn't he be treated from injuries right away at the scene?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom