Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Darren Wilson, Good Cop in an Inept Police Department?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
For the sake of this thread, let's assume the shooting has justified. Michael Brown was the aggressor and Darren Wilson had to use deadly force, in other words the criteria for using deadly force was met and Michael Brown was a legitimate threat. Up until back-up arrived I can see no holes in Darren Wilson's story. The fallout afterwards is a completely different story.

Could this incident simply been the straw that broke the camel's back and Darren Wilson just happened to be caught in the 'crossfire'?




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

That is a possibility.

It's also a possibility that the LEO gunned down the suspect that tried to surrender at the last minute.

The following week, Ferguson police shot down another black man and got caught lying about it. There is ampl evidence that altering evidence, lying and hiding things are standard at the department.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Caught in the crossfire is fitting, considering he shot an unarmed kid to death.

Now, I have heard he suffered a blow to the face from this kid.
The academy who trained him was clearly inept, as a "peace officer" should always take effective measures to not outright kill a suspect of a crime.
They have mace, they've got a tazer.

Why are people pissed? Because this isn't an isolated incident. Cops all across the U.S have been using deadly force on citizens, and their pets.
What I'm seeing here is nothing more than irresponsible training and very little accountability for their actions.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
For the sake of this assumption I will simply type that I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into negative remarks no one should have to read.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ThinkingCap

Does anyone who repeats the "He shot an unarmed kid to death" cry actually have any Law Enforcement experience?

A person grabbing for any item on an officer's duty belt is enough of a threat to justify using deadly force. Let us not forget there now have been several reports of Brown charging officer Wilson, again another justification for deadly force.

Based on the preliminary autopsy report that I have seen, there is no evidence that refutes officer Wilson's testimony.
edit on 21-8-2014 by jrod because: 's



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
edit on 21-8-2014 by abe froman because: Nevermind,keep killing each other and looting.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Sadly, I get the feeling calling for Darren Wilson's head on a platter would be a much more popular thread. It seems like a major problem in Ferguson is so many want swift vigilante justice without taking the time to examine the evidence.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

The fact that any updates on the investigation are absent to this point is a telling FACT. The Officer will not be charged with Murder,or Civil Rights Violations. believe me if they were going to charge him it would have already been done. What we are seeing now is the gathering of officials at the federal and state level trying desperately to figure out how they are going to break this to the public. It will be a mess. The questioning of witnesses is over, The State has handed over their case to the Feds who sent 40 agents out for Three days. The state will bring no charges and neither will the Department of Justice.

What the spinning heads are trying to figure out is who is going to break the news, and who is going to put down the response to this ruling.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
Sadly, I get the feeling calling for Darren Wilson's head on a platter would be a much more popular thread. It seems like a major problem in Ferguson is so many want swift vigilante justice without taking the time to examine the evidence.


I respect your opinion, and I also admit that I'm not well versed on this particular case.
I'm trying to look at this from a larger social issue rather than an isolated incident.

There are just too many cop shootings.

Regarding this case though, there is a lot conflicting information. Did he charge the officer? Why didn't the officer shoot him in the leg? Do they only train these cops to empty their clips these days?

People are angry because cops are using far too much force, for the simple fact that they are not only allowed to but are trained to do so.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ThinkingCap

I agree there are way too many cop shootings, especially when the officer(s) involved appear to have no regard to what is behind the target when using a firearm.

No doubt there was already great mistrust and dislike for the police by the people of Ferguson, otherwise none of this would have happened. The actions after the shooting by the police department is what appears to be the major problem.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: scattergun

They could always place Wilson in a witness relocation program and claim he offed himself in a state of depression or some other reason.

While it may solve the immediate unrest in Ferguson, it still leaves open the fact there are growing problems with which the police handle day to day operations.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThinkingCap

Regarding this case though, there is a lot conflicting information. Did he charge the officer? Why didn't the officer shoot him in the leg? Do they only train these cops to empty their clips these days?

People are angry because cops are using far too much force, for the simple fact that they are not only allowed to but are trained to do so.


First, they are called magazines not clips so I know you are unfamiliar with semi-automatic handguns. The police likely had a magazine with 15 bullets in it so to say he emptied his clip a false statement. 6 bullets in a kill or get killed situation is NOT excessive.

I know of an actual police case where the 'bad guy' was able to wrestle a police officer's service pistol away, the officer had a back-up side arm and unloaded the entire 8 round magazine in the 'bad guy' and he still did not drop instantly. The police officer's sworn testimony said he only remembered firing two shots and was shocked when he ran out of ammo.

The police are trained to shoot to stop the threat and aim for center of mass, a firearm is considered deadly force so when I gun is used the situation has escalated to a point where deadly force is necessary. Again let is NOT forget that Mr. Brown allegedly tried to grab officer's Wilson service pistol.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
For the sake of this thread, let's assume the shooting has justified. Michael Brown was the aggressor and Darren Wilson had to use deadly force, in other words the criteria for using deadly force was met and Michael Brown was a legitimate threat. Up until back-up arrived I can see no holes in Darren Wilson's story. The fallout afterwards is a completely different story.

Could this incident simply been the straw that broke the camel's back and Darren Wilson just happened to be caught in the 'crossfire'?



I've been reading these threads and refraining to comment. I don't know what the facts of the case are. I eagerly await them. Until such a time, I don't want to invent any scenarios.

There have been many instances of police killings. But further there have been many instances of police being killed. In a society such as we have, we should avoid the knee-jerk response and learn the facts of the case. There will always be several viewpoints/ stories of what happened, as well as conjecture.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod
Well for one, I don't think Wilson has given any public testimony himself nor has he actually given a report that has been relayed to the public, as he is in hiding.

For another, authorities have told the NYT that Wilson did indeed get out of his vehicle while Brown and Johnson were running away and did indeed fire his weapon while they were running from his position.
edit on 13Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:56:36 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: clarification



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven It is perfectly legal for an officer to fire on a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect presents a danger to civilians. I believe Mike Brown presented a danger to civilians, but don't take my word for it, let's ask that little guy this behemoth stole from and threw to the ground.

Where is all the Anti-bully sentiment now?

edit on 21-8-2014 by abe froman because: sp



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: abe froman
I am interested in facts, not conjecture and speculation nor anonymous sources. Have you learned nothing from the multiple threads where something claimed turned out to be wrong? People got plenty of stars out of it, and yet they were utterly wrong.

And yet the officer didn't know about the incident at the store, or did, or didn't. The story keeps changing from the police there. If he didn't know that Brown was involved, then he couldn't reasonably use that to justify firing.

Remember the narrative that, because there were no back wounds to Brown that he was not shot at while running away?
That's gone now, because of the reasonably accurate claim that Wilson did indeed shoot while Brown was running away.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: abe froman
I am interested in facts, not conjecture and speculation nor anonymous sources.


Well,since that's all we have why do you keep posting?

I am interested in common sense and justice over revenge.

I am glad that Ferguson wised up and got dash cams and body cameras, those two items in conjunction go a long way to reigning in (good and)bad cops.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Calling this police force inept is an understatement. Though people didn't witness the shooting, they did witness how the police force treated the press and protesters.

They are aggressive, quick to use force and don't seem to care about rights. Overall, they don't seem to understand how to keep a situation from escalating and seem to actually provoke bad actions.

Could he have been a good guy at heart and just been poorly trained by a police department with a bad culture? Maybe.

But most criminals are good people too who are victims of their environment. It still doesn't excuse their behavior.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

The changing of the story is what disturbs me. Now they are saying officer Wilson did not have an orbital fracture.

I almost feel like we are being played, just like the rabble rousers who incited the riots played on the the anti-police sentiment and the vulnerable emotional state of of those who just witnessed a person that many knew get shot several times and killed by someone in uniform.
edit on 21-8-2014 by jrod because: ed



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Greven

The changing of the story is what disturbs me. Now they are saying officer Wilson did not have an orbital fracture.



Not only are they not saying Wilson doesn't have an orbital fracture, they never said he did in the first place.

An awful lot of what we are hearing is attributed to anonymous sources. The media is for sure jerking us around, after we get this calmed down, we as a nation might need to take a close look at journalistic integrity and responsibility.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join