Ferguson Grand Jury...

[Cow Poke]

Ferguson protestors call for a boycott of Black Friday. I'm all FOR it! Less vehicles on the streets and my wife won't complain about the crowds!

[fm93]

Yes, as somebody who WAS a police officer, and who is actively involved with police activity, as opposed to somebody who just reads stuff and spews forth ignorance, I'm telling you that there are times when mace is a very bad idea. It's covered in the police training, and is why tasers were invented and are being deployed INSTEAD of mace in so many departments.

Is it painful for you to explain why mace is allegedly such a bad idea and why officers even carry mace at all if it's allegedly so ineffective? Note as well that my question also involved tasers as an option.

I praise God that people like you don't sign up to be cops.

Because then you might be required to actually answer questions instead of ignoring them with vague obfuscations and insults?

I don't know - those linemen that I watch on Sunday look like they're moving pretty darn fast.

They're professional athletes, which Brown was not. Also, Wilson said in the testimony that he didn't fire the fatal shot until Brown was eight to ten feet away. Doesn't seem like Brown was moving that quickly if Wilson had time to shoot when he was that close. (Keep in mind that someone who runs the 40-yard dash in 6 seconds is traversing twenty feet per second.)

[fm93]

The point is that it's not worth the risk. Wilson (or anybody else) should not risk his own life to protect the life of a guy who created the incident in the first place.

I heard someone once went further than that and actually sacrificed his own life to protect the lives of the guys who created all negative incidents in the first place.

Nevermind that all this assumes that this incident had a planning phase where officer Wilson could decide on what to do, like it was a video game.

Police officers have to be held to higher standards than civilians and have to be able to think quickly under pressure. Besides, Wilson said that while he was being punched and therefore was in immediate danger, he was quickly going over each option and weighing the usefulness in his mind. But then once he's no longer in immediate danger, he stops thinking about anything besides using a gun?

I think this is the single most ignorant comment I've read about the entire incident, bar none.

It's not quite the same thing, but when an armed James Holmes shot and killed multiple people at a Colorado movie theater, the police were able to take him alive and arrest him. If I'm understanding whag correctly, the argument is that that seemed like an even more complicated and dangerous situation (Holmes was armed and Brown was not; Holmes had actually killed people and Brown had not), yet the police were able to de-escalate it without killing the shooter himself.

If you're so sure a 'better' cop could have done this better, then tell me how to de-escalate the situation. I'm all ears.

I'm still waiting for an answer as to why mace allegedly wouldn't have worked, and whether carrying and using a taser would have.

Just remember: (1) retreat is not an option (you're a cop and you're trying to arrest Brown for assaulting you...not to mention that whole robbery thing)

Why not? If Brown was indeed charging at him, retreat seems like a valid option. And Wilson even said in his testimony that he was thinking of buying time until backup arrived.

and (2) have a friend punch you in the face before you start to consider your options.

He said he did consider the other options before the gun while he was being punched, but then curiously didn't think of anything besides the gun after Brown had stopped punching him and was running away.

[Cow Poke]

Is it painful for you to explain why mace is allegedly such a bad idea and why officers even carry mace at all if it's allegedly so ineffective? Note as well that my question also involved tasers as an option.

Not at all!

Because then you might be required to actually answer questions instead of ignoring them with vague obfuscations and insults?

Um... no... it's because I think you'd make a terrible cop, and would endanger your community.

They're professional athletes, which Brown was not. Also, Wilson said in the testimony that he didn't fire the fatal shot until Brown was eight to ten feet away. Doesn't seem like Brown was moving that quickly if Wilson had time to shoot when he was that close. (Keep in mind that someone who runs the 40-yard dash in 6 seconds is traversing twenty feet per second.)

Perhaps you've never fired a semi-auto?

[Cow Poke]

I heard someone once went further than that and actually sacrificed his own life to protect the lives of the guys who created all negative incidents in the first place.

That "someone" was sinless, and was being obedient to His father.

Wilson was a sinner (whether saved by Grace or not, I do not know) who was acting in his official capacity as a Police Officer, not a Savior of the World.

[myth]

I heard someone once went further than that and actually sacrificed his own life to protect the lives of the guys who created all negative incidents in the first place.



Police officers have to be held to higher standards than civilians and have to be able to think quickly under pressure. Besides, Wilson said that while he was being punched and therefore was in immediate danger, he was quickly going over each option and weighing the usefulness in his mind. But then once he's no longer in immediate danger, he stops thinking about anything besides using a gun?

Police are held to a higher standard than regular civilians...I'm just arguing that they shouldn't be held to higher standards are humanly possible. Let's keep our expectations realistic.

It's not quite the same thing, but when an armed James Holmes shot and killed multiple people at a Colorado movie theater, the police were able to take him alive and arrest him. If I'm understanding whag correctly, the argument is that that seemed like an even more complicated and dangerous situation (Holmes was armed and Brown was not; Holmes had actually killed people and Brown had not), yet the police were able to de-escalate it without killing the shooter himself.

You need a whole paradigm shift, brother. When you do this kind of training, you quickly learn that the outcome of the situation is almost ENTIRELY dictated by the bad guy.

Take, for example a police officer locating an armed gunman (who's shot people) inside a school. The gunman is standing in a hallway, just outside a classroom, with the weapon pointed down (because this allows the police to experience the maximum number of options for this scenario). Here's what's going to happen:

The officer will challenge the suspect (i.e. "Drop the weapon", "Get on the ground", "Hands up"). Now let's look at the likely outcomes.

1.
Suspect's choice: No Action - If the suspect takes no action (or movement) then the officer has time to consider other strategies.
Officer choice: Shoot (to quickly resolve the situation so people can get medical care)
Repeat the challenge
Physically remove the weapon/start a fight

2.
Suspect's choice: Walk into the classroom
Officer choice: Shoot the suspect (very little wiggle room here, cause you can't allow the suspect to barricade himself in the room or kill more people hiding in the room)

3.
Suspect's choice: Walk away
Officer choice: Shoot the suspect (refer to item # 2 above)

4.
Suspect's choice: Point the weapon at the officer or another person
Officer choice: Shoot the suspect ( I shouldn't have to explain this one)

5.
Suspect's choice: Drop the weapon to the ground.
Officer choice: Advance on suspect and begin handcuffing procedures.

Remember, the officer's actions are default and not going to change. He's there to GET CONTROL and MAINTAIN CONTROL of the situation, and he plans on going home to his family after the shift. Notice how what the officer does is dependent, in every way, on what the suspect does?

I'm still waiting for an answer as to why mace allegedly wouldn't have worked, and whether carrying and using a taser would have.

I'm happy to help on this one.

1. In a small percentage of cases (I've heard different numbers, usually 5-10%), the person sprayed with pepper/OC spray is not affected in any way. Some people just do not react to it.

2. Personal resistance to the spray varies from person to person. It's more effective on some people, less so on others.

3. In cases where the spray does work, it takes up to 4-8 seconds before the person even feels any pain at all.

4. Pepper/OC spray is pain compliance only. In other words, a determined (or intoxicated, or high suspect) can completely overcome the effects by sheer force of will. I've seen people on the street overcome it. Depends on the person and their mindset.

Because of all this above, pepper spray is really a tool best suited for a suspect who is actively resisting, but does not display active aggression. If you use it on an aggressive suspect (meaning one that's trying to hurt you), then you'll like get your• Edited by a Moderator •beat as you realize the pepper spray didn't work like you wanted it to.

Tazers are a great tool, but they have their limitations as well. A few things to mention about them.

1. Most police tazers have a MAXIMUM deployment range of 15 feet. At this range, the probe spread is around 5 feet (meaning if you aim for the neck you might get lucky and get the other probe stuck in the guy's shin).

2. Without two probes making full skin contact (and a minimum distance apart from each other), the tazer is pain compliance only. It won't cause people to stiffen up like a board and fall down (which is the desired effect).

3. Hitting a moving suspect at more than 10 ft away is very hard. The bottom probe fires on an angle from the top probe, so you have to cant the device and hope you get a leg. With those legs moving fast, it's hard.

4. Because of court cases and unintended consequences on the street, actually aiming for the head or heart area with a tazer is prohibited.

Also...Officer Wilson wasn't carrying a tazer that day.

Why not? If Brown was indeed charging at him, retreat seems like a valid option. And Wilson even said in his testimony that he was thinking of buying time until backup arrived.

Have you ever been in a fight? You win by completely incapacitating your opponent or asserting your dominance. Brown only ran when Wilson shot him, then changed his mind and decided he wanted to keep fighting anyways. To me, turning and trying to run away seems weak. A thug like Brown would only sense that weakness and take advantage by continuing the assault.

He said he did consider the other options before the gun while he was being punched, but then curiously didn't think of anything besides the gun after Brown had stopped punching him and was running away.

I'm sorry, is there something wrong with that line of thought?

Brown made it a deadly force encounter by trying to grab the officer's gun. He initiated assault on the officer. Then he chose to stop running and start fighting again, after ALREADY BEING SHOT. So yeah, putting up the gun and grabbing a baton sounds like a terrible idea to me, too.

[Cow Poke]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to why mace allegedly wouldn't have worked

I'm going to humor you on this, SP, though you could have researched this yourself.

Let's see what the MANUFACTURER of Mace says.... (emphasis mine)

Dear Consumer:

Our records indicate that you purchased Mace chemical self-protection spray from our company. This is to advise you that Mace Security International, Inc. ("MSI") and Personal Security, Inc. ("PSI") have entered into a consent agreement with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") to stop making certain representations about the effectiveness of Mace with 1 CN and other chemical self- protection products unless the representations are true and adequately substantiated. The FTC alleges that the advertising for Mace made the following false and unsubstantiated representations:

(1) that one spray of Mace will stop an assailant;
(2) that any contact with the upper torso by a spray of Mace will stop an assailant; and
(3) that use of Mace will instantly stop an assailant.

The FTC also alleges that MSI and PSI, while making effectiveness claims, failed to disclose adequately that (a) it may take several seconds for the effects of Mace to begin, and (b) Mace may not be effective on many assailants including those who are armed, enraged, drugged, intoxicated, or otherwise desensitized.

Finally, the FTC alleges that MSI and PSI did not possess adequate substantiating evidence for the following representations:

that Mace will keep an assailant incapacitated or up to about 20 minutes;
that the effectiveness of Mace for civilian self-protection has been proven in use by police forces;
that four out of five police officers in the United States carry Mace;
and that over 4000 police departments in the United States use Mace for protection against assault.

The products covered by this consent agreement include Mace and other chemical self-protection products. We advise that you limit your use of Mace in accordance with these restrictions:

(1) Mace may not be effective against armed assailants;
(2) Mace may take several seconds to work; and
(3) Mace may not work on enraged, drugged, or intoxicated assailants.

Sincerely,

Jon E. Goodrich, President, Mace Security International, Inc. and Personal Security, Inc.

Now, you may ask WHY Mace Security, International sent such a letter to their customers in 1994, and I assure you it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's because the Federal Trade Commission ORDERED them to.... [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 1994)]

Appendix B

[To Be Printed On MACE Security International, Inc. Letterhead]

Dear Consumer: Our records indicate that you purchased MACE chemical self-protection spray from our company. This is to advise you that MACE Security International, Inc. (``MSI'') and Personal Security, Inc. (``PSI'') have entered into a consent agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') to stop making certain representations about the effectiveness of MACE with 1% CN and other chemical self-protection products unless the representations are true and adequately substantiated. The FTC alleged that the advertising for MACE made the following false and unsubstantiated representations:

(1) That one spray of MACE will stop an assailant;
(2) That any contact with the upper torso by a spray of MACE will stop an assailant; and
(3) That use of MACE will instantly stop an assailant.

The FTC also alleged that MSI and PSI, while making effectiveness claims, failed to disclose adequately that 1) it may take several seconds for the effects of MACE to begin, and 2) MACE may not be effective on many assailants including those who are armed, enraged, drugged, intoxicated, or otherwise desensitized.

Finally, the FTC alleged that MSI and PSI did not possess adequate substantiating evidence for the following representations:
(1) That MACE will keep an assailant incapacitated for up to or about 20 minutes;
(2) That the effectiveness of MACE for civilian self-protection has been proven in use by police forces;
(3) That four out of five police officers in the United States carry MACE; and
(4) That over 4000 police departments in the United States use MACE for protection against assault.

The products covered by this consent agreement include MACE and other chemical self-protection products. We advise that you limit your use of MACE in accordance with these restrictions:
(1) MACE may not be effective against armed assailants.
(2) MACE may take several seconds to work.
(3) MACE may not work on enraged, drugged, or intoxicated assailants.

Sincerely,
Jon E. Goodrich,
President, MACE Security International, Inc. and Personal Security, Inc.

Given this admission by the manufacturer of Mace, and the finding of the Federal Trade Commission that claims of effectiveness of Mace are bogus, Wilson would have been FOOLISH to try to deploy Mace in this particular circumstance.

A) The altercation began with Wilson seated in his patrol vehicle (an enclosed environment) and was punched in the face.
2) The assailant tried to wrestle Wilson's DEADLY FORCE weapon from him - he wasn't trying to steal Wilson's Mace.
C) The "use of deadly force" became viable from the moment Brown attacked Wilson and tried to take his duty weapon.
4) Had Brown laid face down in the street with his arms outstretched, or had he IN FACT knelt with his hands up in "surrender", the use of deadly force would no longer been a viable option.
5) There is ZERO proof that Wilson was complying with an order to "stop", and was, in fact, an enraged criminal under the influence of drugs (as attested in the autopsy) -- EXACTLY the type of individual that the Manufacturer of Mace was forced by the FTC to admit Mace would have been INEFFECTIVE in subduing.

Is that thorough enough?

[lilpixieofterror]

Is it painful for you to explain why mace is allegedly such a bad idea and why officers even carry mace at all if it's allegedly so ineffective? Note as well that my question also involved tasers as an option.

Your majesty, why do you continue to show such ignorance of the police and how they operate, but keep insisting that you know what you're talking about? One of the things I had to do for my military training was go into a room, wearing full chemical gear, and remove my mask in a room full of tear gas. Wasn't the most pleasant of experiences, but it wasn't an instant affect and I can see how it is possible to fight though it longer than a few seconds. Tasers have problems themselves. They have very limited range and can only deal with one suspect at a time. Remember, Michael Brown wasn't alone and had already once assaulted an officer. Why do you continue to defend such criminal behavior instead of condemning it for the life ending and sucking thing it really is? If you don't want to be shot by a police officer, it is rather easy. Don't assault the police.

[fm93]

Take, for example a police officer locating an armed gunman (who's shot people) inside a school. The gunman is standing in a hallway, just outside a classroom, with the weapon pointed down (because this allows the police to experience the maximum number of options for this scenario). Here's what's going to happen:

Remember, the officer's actions are default and not going to change. He's there to GET CONTROL and MAINTAIN CONTROL of the situation, and he plans on going home to his family after the shift. Notice how what the officer does is dependent, in every way, on what the suspect does?

Alright then. I was just trying to reconstruct what I believed whag's argument to be.

1. In a small percentage of cases (I've heard different numbers, usually 5-10%), the person sprayed with pepper/OC spray is not affected in any way. Some people just do not react to it.

2. Personal resistance to the spray varies from person to person. It's more effective on some people, less so on others.

A success rate of over 90% seems to be worth using with reasonable confidence.

3. In cases where the spray does work, it takes up to 4-8 seconds before the person even feels any pain at all.

4. Pepper/OC spray is pain compliance only. In other words, a determined (or intoxicated, or high suspect) can completely overcome the effects by sheer force of will. I've seen people on the street overcome it. Depends on the person and their mindset.

Hang on, let me make sure I'm not conflating anything here. I was under the impression that the mace Wilson referred to was the product sold on Mace.com, which says "Mace Pepper Spray"--that is, I thought "Mace" was the brand name for a type of pepper spray. Meanwhile, what you describe seems to be referring to the slightly different type of spray called mace, yet you're calling it pepper spray. What's going on here? This Berkeley police bulletin says that pepper spray causes immediate inflammation of the respiratory system, which seems to conflict with your "4-8 seconds" claim. (It immediately takes effect but the subject somehow doesn't feel pain for several more seconds?) Additionally, it also states that "Individuals, such as the mentally disturbed or those under the influence of intoxicants, who have a high tolerance to pain, are still subject to the inflammatory effects of Pepper Spray." This is supported by the information page here, which says "Even if the subject cannot feel pain due to drugs, alcohol or being emotionally disturbed, the inflammatory effects of pepper spray cause the eyes to close temporarily when the ocular area is saturated."

And if Wilson had the substance that's different from pepper spray, then that begs the following question--if mace is less effective than pepper spray, then why wasn't he carrying the more effective substance?

Tazers are a great tool, but they have their limitations as well. A few things to mention about them.

1. Most police tazers have a MAXIMUM deployment range of 15 feet.

This, too, conflicts with what I've read. For instance, as Taser.com (which, I mean, is the company that manufactures tasers) declares here, "TASER Cartridges Separate TASER CEWs from the Competition. With ranges from 15 to 35 feet (4.5 to 10.6 meters), and accuracy that can't be matched, they are the choice for law enforcement everywhere." There can hardly be a maximum deployment range of 15 feet if this product listed on the website has a range of up to 35 feet.

Also...Officer Wilson wasn't carrying a tazer that day.

Which is why I believe that he (and the Ferguson police department as well, I suppose) didn't handle/prepare for possible dangerous situations as well as they could have and should have.

Have you ever been in a fight? You win by completely incapacitating your opponent or asserting your dominance. Brown only ran when Wilson shot him, then changed his mind and decided he wanted to keep fighting anyways. To me, turning and trying to run away seems weak. A thug like Brown would only sense that weakness and take advantage by continuing the assault.

But he individually didn't need to "win" a fight. He said he was planning on buying time for backup to arrive; retreating would accomplish that as well.

I'm sorry, is there something wrong with that line of thought?

Brown made it a deadly force encounter by trying to grab the officer's gun. He initiated assault on the officer. Then he chose to stop running and start fighting again, after ALREADY BEING SHOT. So yeah, putting up the gun and grabbing a baton sounds like a terrible idea to me, too.

Well, as I said, he supposedly considered using pepper spray BEFORE the gun while his life was literally in immediate danger (when he was allegedly being punched), but didn't consider using pepper spray when his life wasn't in immediate danger? That's an inconsistent line of thought. It makes sense to use a gun when one's life is in immediate danger, and significantly less sense when one's life is not in immediate danger. Seems rather straightforward to me. Wilson's basically saying "I was hesitant to use a gun when he was basically upon me trying to kill me, but I was trigger-happy when he was quite a distance from me."

[Cow Poke]

A success rate of over 90% seems to be worth using with reasonable confidence.

Again, from the MANUFACTURER of Mace....

The products covered by this consent agreement include MACE and other chemical self-protection products. We advise that you limit your use of MACE in accordance with these restrictions:
(1) MACE may not be effective against armed assailants.
(2) MACE may take several seconds to work.
(3) MACE may not work on enraged, drugged, or intoxicated assailants.

Can we please DROP this goofy "he should have used mace" nonsense?

[Cow Poke]

Which is why I believe that he (and the Ferguson police department as well, I suppose) didn't handle/prepare for possible dangerous situations as well as they could have and should have.

Brown CREATED a deadly force scenario by trying to take Wilson's duty weapon from him, and it was actually DISCHARGED in the patrol car, striking Brown, because of BROWN'S assault on Wilson.

You guys are the kind of goofus that would say "well, why didn't the cop just shoot the gun out of his hand"?

[fm93]

Your majesty, why do you continue to show such ignorance of the police and how they operate, but keep insisting that you know what you're talking about? One of the things I had to do for my military training was go into a room, wearing full chemical gear, and remove my mask in a room full of tear gas. Wasn't the most pleasant of experiences, but it wasn't an instant affect and I can see how it is possible to fight though it longer than a few seconds.

Pepper spray, however, supposedly has immediate effects and causes involuntary closure of the eyes and respiratory inflammation, thereby preventing the subject from seeing and breathing properly--and it seems to me that it's rather difficult to "fight through it" and attack someone when you can't breathe properly or see where the person is.

Tasers have problems themselves. They have very limited range and can only deal with one suspect at a time. Remember, Michael Brown wasn't alone

I have sources from the Taser company itself that seem to dispute your claim about "very limited range," and Johnson wasn't the one allegedly running towards Wilson, so there wouldn't be any need to use a taser on him.

Why do you continue to defend such criminal behavior instead of condemning it for the life ending and sucking thing it really is?

I am absolutely not defending criminal behavior. I'm simply defending a person's right to life, no matter what sort of horrendous thing he might've done.

If you don't want to be shot by a police officer, it is rather easy. Don't assault the police.

That would certainly help things, but no--that implies that people who do assault the police deserve to be killed, which I don't agree with at all. Do you not believe in an infinitely great God who has the power to forgive and reform even the most hardened, vicious criminals?

[fm93]

Again, from the MANUFACTURER of Mace....

The products covered by this consent agreement include MACE and other chemical self-protection products. We advise that you limit your use of MACE in accordance with these restrictions:
(1) MACE may not be effective against armed assailants.
(2) MACE may take several seconds to work.
(3) MACE may not work on enraged, drugged, or intoxicated assailants.

Can we please DROP this goofy "he should have used mace" nonsense?

If you'd read my response to "myth," you might've noticed that I have a discussion about pepper spray, which apparently seems to be more effective--so the question then becomes "why didn't he use pepper spray?"

Additionally, unless I missed something, marijuana was the only drug found in his body, correct? I have never heard of marijuana causing the type and magnitude of aggression that Wilson claims, and besides, traces of marijuana can linger in one's body for months. This is hardly proof that Brown was actually intoxicated on drugs at the time of the incident.

Brown CREATED a deadly force scenario by trying to take Wilson's duty weapon from him, and it was actually DISCHARGED in the patrol car, striking Brown, because of BROWN'S assault on Wilson.

An officer is authorized to use deadly force when a subject poses an immediate deadly threat to him, yes...but why is the officer STILL authorized to use deadly force when the subject no longer poses an immediate deadly threat?

[Epoetker]

I am absolutely not defending criminal behavior. I'm simply defending a person's right to life, no matter what sort of horrendous thing he might've done.

Does not and will never exist.

That would certainly help things, but no--that implies that people who do assault the police deserve to be killed, which I don't agree with at all. Do you not believe in an infinitely great God who has the power to forgive and reform even the most hardened, vicious criminals?

Ah, so you're trying to flog this fallacy in order to deflect attention from your failure to understand why nonlethal options are useless? Pitiful.

Hardened criminals may choose to save their souls of their own accord at any time, even under the hangman's noose (or for that matter, on the cross, possibly you should read the entire account at some point.) That does not make the act of hanging them less necessary or moral. Getting saved is an individual event, and the minimum responsibility of Christians as a body politic is to ensure that God's truth is freely preached, which becomes much more difficult when the popular imagination is that Christianity is a religion of supplicating to the aggressively lawless and letting them prey on the innocent, on the off-chance that they might reform this time. Who might be responsible for that, I wonder?

[Cow Poke]

If you'd read my response to "myth," you might've noticed that I have a discussion about pepper spray, which apparently seems to be more effective--so the question then becomes "why didn't he use pepper spray?"

What makes you think pepper spray is more effective than Mace?

Additionally, unless I missed something, marijuana was the only drug found in his body, correct? I have never heard of marijuana causing the type and magnitude of aggression that Wilson claims, and besides, traces of marijuana can linger in one's body for months. This is hardly proof that Brown was actually intoxicated on drugs at the time of the incident.

It's what we call "corroborative" evidence -- Wilson's testimony was that Brown was enraged. The Grand Jury, who looked at ALL the actual facts, evidence, and testimony under oath --- not just the news media's hype that you keep relying on --- chose to "no bill" him.

An officer is authorized to use deadly force when a subject poses an immediate deadly threat to him, yes...

FINALLY a true statement!

but why is the officer STILL authorized to use deadly force when the subject no longer poses an immediate deadly threat?

A) It is Wilson's choice to make based on the circumstances at the time
2) The Grand Jury, with all facts and testimony available to them, obviously believed Wilson.