St. Louis, Missouri Vs. The Police: Heaven Or Hell, Duel 1! Let's Rock!

what if having power over others gives you a big hard-on?

I'd say the only cure would be to put them in a position where power is "had" over them. Like a prison shower.

Gay rape, the cure for society.

Assaulting teenage girls is not a normal part of society. Besides, prison rape is not about sex, it's about dominance.

Prison rape happens, but far, far less than society thinks;

Most of the sex in prison is consensual. And is about sex.

I did say "most".

Of the rape victims in this country we're giving consideration to, I'm not saying those being raped in prison should be cast aside, but let's focus on the innocent first.

That's the heart of the, admittedly, abstract quip I used. What kind of crime would someone have to commit to deserve that kind of treatment? Moreover, what kinds of punishments are we willing to impose?

I'm a bad person to ask about this, especially today. My views on crime and punishment had lightened considerably over the past few months; in part thanks to discussions here.

But recent events on a national and local level have sort of got me regressing to my older feelings on the subject.

And I readily admit some of my ideas are a bit...draconian.

I feel like just about anyone could find themselves on the wrong end of the law

Like I said. I'm aware of the flaws in my ways of thinking.

Doesn't really make me feel any better about guilty parties getting off far too lightly.

And they do far too often.

A Ferguson police officer was shot in the arm Saturday night after encountering two men at a community center who ran from him and then opened fire during a foot chase, authorities said.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said at a media briefing early Sunday that the officer approached the men around 9:10 p.m. because the community center was closed. As the officer approached, the men ran away. When the officer gave chase, "one of the men turned and shot," Belmar said.

The officer was shot in the arm and is expected to survive, he said. Belmar did not identify the officer or give further details about his condition. He said the officer returned fire but said police have "no indication" that either suspect was shot.

A search was underway for the suspects early Sunday in Ferguson, the St. Louis suburb that's been the scene of racial unrest in the wake of the August shooting death of an unarmed black 18-year-old by a white police officer.

Belmar said he did not think the officer's shooting was related to two separate protests about Michael Brown's shooting that were going on Saturday night around the same time.

Around midnight at the police station, approximately two dozen officers stood near a group of about 100 protesters who mingled on a street corner, occasionally shouting, "No justice; no peace."

Nearby, part of a road was closed in town as police conducted a search for the suspects. Numerous law enforcement agencies were responding, and police helicopters were canvassing the area.

The officer's shooting comes after Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson issued a videotaped apology to Brown's family earlier in the week and attempted to march with protesters, an effort that led to a clash with activists and several arrests on Thursday.

Brown's parents told The Associated Press on Saturday they were unmoved by the apology.

Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden, said, "yes," when asked if Jackson should be fired, and his father, Michael Brown Sr., said rather than an apology, they would like to see the officer who shot their son arrested.

A county grand jury is weighing whether to indict Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in Brown's shooting.

The Justice Department, which is investigating whether Brown's civil rights were violated, is conducting a broader probe into Ferguson police. On Friday, it urged Jackson to ban his officers from wearing bracelets supporting Wilson while on duty and from covering up their name plates with black tape.

Ferguson residents complained about the bracelets, which are black with "I am Darren Wilson" in white lettering, at a meeting with federal officials this week.

Under pressure from the Justice Department, police officials in and around Ferguson, Mo., have agreed to prohibit their forces from wearing wristbands in support of the officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown.

The Justice Department also directed Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson to order his officers to follow policy and wear nameplates on their uniforms after federal investigators and residents spotted some with the identifiers removed or covered up.

The ban on "I Am Darren Wilson" wristbands was confirmed Friday in a letter to Jackson from Christy Lopez, deputy chief of special litigation for the Civil Rights Division.

"These bracelets reinforce the very 'us versus them' mentality that many residents of Ferguson believe exists," she wrote. She noted that the St. Louis County police chief and the superintendent of the Missouri Highway Patrol had also agreed to prohibit their officers from wearing the wristbands while on duty in Ferguson.

Wilson has not been charged over the Aug. 9 killing of the unarmed teen. He claimed he fired after Brown attacked him. A state grand jury is looking at the evidence and the FBI is investigating whether Brown's civil rights were violated.

Lopez said the Justice Department was "keenly aware of the importance of individual expression of opinions, even those that some find offensive, insensitive or harmful" and that "the message that many officers intend to convey by wearing these bracelets may be different than the message received by many of those who see these bracelets."

"Nonetheless, there is no question that police departments can and should closely regulate officers' professional appearance and behavior, particularly where, as here, the expressive accessory itself is exacerbating an already tense atmosphere between law enforcement and residents in Ferguson."

Police told not to wear i-am-darren-wilson-bracelets

Gun shot wounds - majority are in suspect's right arm. If a trained police officer was trying to kill someone you would think they would at least unload into the abdomen or the head.

Yeah, black people are scary. They need to all submit to white people or die.

Adrenaline is proven to affect accuracy when using a firearm, especially one that's not shoulder mounted (such as a handgun). He may have been aiming at center mass, but got the arms.

There's no department that I'm aware of that trains to shoot in the head, it's always center mass as to limit missed rounds and collateral damage.

Also, if a trained police officer draws their firearm and fires a round, they're not shooting to maim/disarm/scare/warn they're shooting to stop a threat, in other words, to kill.

I'm aware of police brutality and how its more common than many would like to think, but on this case, after hearing the details, I'm with the cops.

-he robbed a store 30 mins before the police saw him walking in the middle of the street. The description of the suspect matched.

-Police rolls down window to talk to him. Gets heated, officer tries to step out of car, suspect reaches through window and starts assaulting him.

-He flees, officers gives chase.

-When he catches up to him, suspect turns around and yells then charges officer.

-Gun shot wounds - majority are in suspect's right arm. If a trained police officer was trying to kill someone you would think they would at least unload into the abdomen or the head.

-the witnesses that came forward for the most part have been shown to have given false testimony.

-this teen was HUGE. He wasn't 5'8 110-150 lbs kid. He was over 6'3 if memory serves and close to 300 lbs.

Don't flame if you disagree, give me the updated details. I made my mind up about this case based on the coverage I watched on the mainstream media due to lack of timing. I could have been fed a load of ***, seeing as its from the mainstream media. So I'll gladly accept what I know to be wrong, but based on what I do know - the cop did nothing wrong.

I'm fairly certain S.W.A.T are trained for head shots, as are counter terrorism units.

The other two points are assumptions - first that the officer's adrenaline levels were effecting their actions is speculative at best. More realistically I imagine they are trained to not panic under situations and exercise restraint in the situation as best as they can, as per their training.

Second, that discharging a firearm is purely to execute lethal force to kill isn't necessarily true. There's a lot of documented cases of police officers discharging their firearms to subdue and stop the threat.
This officer discharged 7 shots as far as I am aware, the first 5 ended up in the suspect's arm.

Also as far as I am aware there was no autopsy. Why not? I want to know if the suspect was on any adrenaline enhancing and mind chemically altering drugs such as PCP.


EDIT: On the testimonies of witnesses - forensics disproved 3 of them. They said the officer shot the suspect from the back, forensics showed the bullets points of entry were all from the front.


Is it entirely implausible that the officer was acting accordingly and had no other choice? I'm not letting my disgust and loathing of police brutality sway my judgement on this. I really want to see some evidence that the officer was out for blood.

A thing also to remeber in Missouri state statue in refrence to deadly force.

It is autorized to use deadly force for a fleeing felon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

According to who?
According the the US Supreme Court, only in certain circumstances.
Also see Graham v. Connor.

This decision needs to be more clearly defined in police policies, actually. I spoke to a couple officers at a recent local public meeting (we've had some serious misconduct incidents and formed a public review board) and many were under the impression that they were allowed to use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect even if they didn't pose a credible AND immediate threat. The conception seemed to be that if they had committed the crime of resisting arrest that they exhibited a propensity for violence and could pose a threat to someone in the future. They also said that they carry their pistol on their right hip and taser on their left because they felt that the pistol needed to be the most accessible means of stopping a suspect. The two I spoke to have very clean records and are, from what I can tell, very good officers, but it demonstrates a culture of deadly force even among the better officers.