Police Shootings / Possible Abuse Threads [merged] (8 Viewers)

Well, the DA states that there was an officer in the path of the car when Brown started to drive forward. The view from the camera wasn't very clear though. Wonder if there are more camera angles than that one. Pretty hard to tell exactly what happened there.

Not saying it was justified, but I'm not sure that this is a case that would get very far in front of a jury. Unless there's more to go on, that would be tough to rule on, from what I can see there.
The last video is almost directly behind the car. Unless that cop is on the ground, I see nothing but land in front of Brown, which is why he sped off compared to gingerly maneuvering around the cops.
 
The last video is almost directly behind the car. Unless that cop is on the ground, I see nothing but land in front of Brown, which is why he sped off compared to gingerly maneuvering around the cops.
I thought that part was after the cop moved out the way when Brown started moving the car forward. He initially was backing up before he moved forward. But it's not real clear and all that happened pretty fast.

But hopefully we'll get more than what's been released so far.
 
I thought that part was after the cop moved out the way when Brown started moving the car forward. He initially was backing up before he moved forward. But it's not real clear and all that happened pretty fast.

But hopefully we'll get more than what's been released so far.
I think people see that and don't realize a vehicle is a deadly machine. The average person doesn't ever think, "hey I'm going to run over a cop with the car". They think I'm trying to get away like some Hollywood movie. Cops well understand the dangers.

It is disturbing to me that police are looking more like military assault teams than police officers though. IDK the circumstances to say that was warranted or not and frankly lack the knowledge it would take as well.

It just seems that we are now waging a drug war in our streets and its getting too aggressive. Decriminalized drugs for small amounts along with treatment and early education just strikes me as a more life affirming approach to stopping the problem. It's simply not worth the lives of citizens or police in conflict to me.

It's not like the country didn't understand the problems generated by prohibition of alcohol and adjust to a safer model. It's not perfect, but it has some advantages.
 
How does shooting the driver of a moving vehicle make people safer? Is this some kind of long-play, future crime justification for putting everyone in the vicinity at greater risk of being hit by an uncontrolled moving vehicle?
the 'not safe' thing was sending a SWAT team to serve a warrant for a non-violent crime
 
I think people see that and don't realize a vehicle is a deadly machine. The average person doesn't ever think, "hey I'm going to run over a cop with the car". They think I'm trying to get away like some Hollywood movie. Cops well understand the dangers.

It is disturbing to me that police are looking more like military assault teams than police officers though. IDK the circumstances to say that was warranted or not and frankly lack the knowledge it would take as well.

It just seems that we are now waging a drug war in our streets and its getting too aggressive. Decriminalized drugs for small amounts along with treatment and early education just strikes me as a more life affirming approach to stopping the problem. It's simply not worth the lives of citizens or police in conflict to me.

It's not like the country didn't understand the problems generated by prohibition of alcohol and adjust to a safer model. It's not perfect, but it has some advantages.
I think that these incidents are planned for and are exactly what is wanted. I mean where else can you legally murder your own countrymen and get paid to do it. Living out heroic fantasies and the such. Also, there is too much legal money tied up in the drug game. It's not going to stop.
 
I think people see that and don't realize a vehicle is a deadly machine. The average person doesn't ever think, "hey I'm going to run over a cop with the car". They think I'm trying to get away like some Hollywood movie. Cops well understand the dangers.
I see nothing in those videos showing any iintent on harming officers. Again, shots are not blasted until the vehicle is moving away. The autopsy report backs.
 
the 'not safe' thing was sending a SWAT team to serve a warrant for a non-violent crime
Yep, I don't know if he's had any history of violence, but since it was a drug warrant, unless there is some violent criminal history, this sort of serving a warrant doesn't make a lot of sense.
I see nothing in those videos showing any iintent on harming officers. Again, shots are not blasted until the vehicle is moving away. The autopsy report backs.
Yeah, fwiw, I'm hard of hearing and couldn't tell when the shooting started. If the car was already moving away from them, then yeah. That said, if he did attempt to drive into the officers before he started moving away, I get why they would shoot. I mean, if he already tried to hit someone, it's not a stretch to think he'd try again. But idk, I'm going with the assumption that the shooting wasn't justified until the LEOs prove otherwise. They're the ones with the guns and the power to kill people. They'll have to prove convincingly that shooting to stop someone is clearly justified. I'm not sure this qualifies.

That said, a jury has a different standard and I'm not really optimistic this will result in much for the officers.

I do think the family has a legitimate civil case though.
 
I see nothing in those videos showing any iintent on harming officers. Again, shots are not blasted until the vehicle is moving away. The autopsy report backs.
I could never really determine exactly when the shots were fired and the cars direction despite viewing a few times. Others may be more keen sensed than I though. Father time has been leaching both sight and sound from me over the years.
 
That said, if he did attempt to drive into the officers before he started moving away, I get why they would shoot. I mean, if he already tried to hit someone, it's not a stretch to think he'd try again.
My take....it seems clear that he wasn't trying to injure the officers, he was trying to escape. So, at that point, the thought "it's not a stretch to think he'd try again" changes. After all, the only way he'd try again is if another group tried to encircle his car and block him in.
 
My take....it seems clear that he wasn't trying to injure the officers, he was trying to escape. So, at that point, the thought "it's not a stretch to think he'd try again" changes. After all, the only way he'd try again is if another group tried to encircle his car and block him in.
my overall issue is these cases showing 2 venn circles that come nowhere close to overlapping
there's the circle of individual rights/autonomy and then the circle of ACTUAL impending danger -- on occasion there is an overlap and we seldom discuss those, but in these cases that are part of national/local discussion, there is often an enormous gulf between those 2 circles
seemingly, the litmus test for a cop should be, 'am i preventing a capital offense' - fleeing a scene is not a capital offense, nor is possessing a bb gun, nor is having a ccl, et al
now we say that 'we don't want police to be judge/jury' and somehow in that calculation we get to this 'reasonably believed they were in danger' nonsense
there's no credibility to it - it's carte blanche
as long as this remains the standard, police will continue to have a license to kill
 
My take....it seems clear that he wasn't trying to injure the officers, he was trying to escape. So, at that point, the thought "it's not a stretch to think he'd try again" changes. After all, the only way he'd try again is if another group tried to encircle his car and block him in.
From what some of reporting, firing into the vehicle is against that department's policy. Supposedly it states that officers are not to fire into a moving vehicle. And it makes sense to say this as that vehicle could then injure others.
 
Last edited:
Officers :"He died from injuries sustained from the crash"
Video: offices beating him to death.
But they'll face no consequence I'm sure.
And taxpayers will be stuck footing the bill on another wrongful death case.
 
From what some of reporting, firing into the vehicle is against that department's policy. Supposedly it states that officers are not to fire into a moving vehicle. And it makes since to say this as that vehicle could then injure others.

This is a great point. What if they had shot him and he hit the accelerator and the car veered towards others? Clearly putting bystanders in danger....I hope those cops get what they deserve but they probably won't.....
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom