- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,728
- Reaction score
- 563
I've posted one time in this thread. I didn't post anyone's name or address. I think you are confused.
If you indeed did not post anyone's name or address, then I apologize !!
I've posted one time in this thread. I didn't post anyone's name or address. I think you are confused.
I've posted one time in this thread. I didn't post anyone's name or address. I think you are confused.
The reason they are tough up front is because you never know when the guy you're going to interact with is a sociopath and will try to kill you. One of my coworkers at a max security prison had a man try to stab him his first day on the job. He had done nothing to the man, never spoken to him, never seen him before. The guy just liked trying to kill guys in uniform. That guy used to be out on the street before he got life. One of the nicest inmates I ever had to deal with always had a smile on his face, was polite, and was a brilliant conversationalist. He also buried nine strangers he had killed, for fun, in his yard.
How would you be if you were in a cop's shoes?
You'll never know until you try.
What about this guy?
That has no bearing whatsoever on what I stated. Interjecting unrelated material to support your position does not in any way undermine the foundation of the position I have stated. I'm offering you insight into something you do not understand. That's me educating you. You are attempting to support your agenda regardless of reality. That's you being stubborn. There is a fine line between ignorance and stupidity.
Oh, well the officers friend surely has the correct story.
You obviously didn't read very carefully. A video taken from a cell phone captured a background conversation where one of the eyewitnesses states that the guy was running toward the cop.
A 290 pound guy running at you, who has already assaulted you once, is capable of and exhibiting deadly force intent.
That's a justifiable kill. I'd do the same, no matter what the skin color was. 290 pounds of angry criminal is enough to kill anyone.
Dr. Michael Baden indicated in his report that Brown was shot six times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Two of the gunshots were to the head, including one to the top of the skull. The skullshot was the final one delivered as it was clearly fatal. A gunshot to the top of the head seems to indicate that Brown was leaning down or on his knees when that shot was delivered. This lends credence to eyewitness accounts that the officer shot Brown execution-style at the end of the confrontation.
The eyewitnesses said that the cop walked up to the kid and shot him in the head execution style. And the autopsy agrees.
The dude was 6'4" and has a wound going down form the top of his skull. How that happens in self defense I'll never know.
The police are too damn militarized. They are out there doing seek and destroy missions rather than protecting and serving.
If you do anything that warrants you being shot, it also warrants you being killed.If that's the case, it is a justifiable shooting, not a justifiable kill. He should have been aiming for the legs to limit mobility. Shoot once then re-evaluate the situation. Don't keep shooting until the guy stops moving.
Plus, why do they just stand around waiting after the shooting instead of administering first-aid to the person they shot?
I wonder how many cops out there are former military. While I respect the military for the sacrifices they've given, former soldiers are not fit for duty as police officers. Soldiers have already been taught to shoot to kill, treat all as enemy combatants, etc. Not exactly good qualities for a police officer to have.
best part is that we was followed by this famous idiotI bet he got filthy rich from kickbacks. woozah!
Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found.One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said. Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.
The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.htmlDr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds. “This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”
He stressed that his information does not assign blame or justify the shooting.
This is why you wait for ALL of the facts to come our before you jump to irrational conclusions based on initial media reports. We just don't know what happened. All we know is that a young black man is dead. We don't know the officer did or why he did it. If the guy was down on his knees and was shot in the head, why was there no powder residue? We just don't know. Was the shooting justified and if it was justified did the officer use more force than was necessary? Did the officer start the confrontation or did the victim?
Even the pathologist, Michael Baden, hired by the family said NO conclusions could be drawn yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html
More facts will come out as the investigation continues. Let's all take a breath and just wait for ALL of the facts. OK. Maybe this cop is a no good racist looking to cap a black kid. Maybe this was no good criminal kid hooped on speed. Maybe it was just a combustible confrontation gone bad. Maybe it's a mixture of all three. I don't know neither does anybody posting here. In a few weeks or months all of the facts will dribble out. What will not be disputed is the community behaved abysmally. There is no excuse for rioting and looting, NONE. The Police also behaved foolishly. They should have gotten as much information out as quickly as possible. They certainly appear to have over reacted. They fomented the mob by not releasing information in a timely manner and putting out information that cast the victim in a bad light. They should not have left his body there as long as they did. There are mo winners here. Only losers.
This is the one thing I don't get. Why does it take forever for EMS to reach the scene in these cases? Or why don't the officers begin medical treatment on the suspect as soon as the threat is gone?
I assume it's the same reason police show up to 911 medical calls: you need backup to make sure you are safe while administering aid. But, that's just a guess.This is the one thing I don't get. Why does it take forever for EMS to reach the scene in these cases? Or why don't the officers begin medical treatment on the suspect as soon as the threat is gone?
I assume it's the same reason police show up to 911 medical calls: you need backup to make sure you are safe while administering aid. But, that's just a guess.
I was going to make a jokey response, but someone died, so....I won't.Well, as a former combat medic I can tell you it's basic triage. You don't waste your time trying lifesaving measures on a guy who's brains are splattered out on the ground behind him. What are you going to tourniquet, his neck?
I was going to make a jokey response, but someone died, so....I won't.
I think the question was in general why don't police administer first aid after they shoot someone.
Probably a matter of securing the location. If you just shot somebody, any friend/relative of theirs is probably not going to be too pleased with you, and may blindside assault you while you're tending to the injured.I was going to make a jokey response, but someone died, so....I won't.
I think the question was in general why don't police administer first aid after they shoot someone.
this is true - although like the previous person said - I am guessing it was very obvious that Mr Brown was deceased, and there was no saving his life - kind of like when my EMT friend showed up to a call of a person vs train and the first question they asked was "where is his head?" -followed by "This was not an EMS call, you gotta call the morgue."Probably a matter of securing the location. If you just shot somebody, any friend/relative of theirs is probably not going to be too pleased with you, and may blindside assault you while you're tending to the injured.
Well, as a former combat medic I can tell you it's basic triage. You don't waste your time trying lifesaving measures on a guy who's brains are splattered out on the ground behind him and has no pulse. What are you going to tourniquet, his neck?
Both of them were probably being dinguses.
Cops get to murder people that are minor threats to them though. That's just how it is in America.
I love how the explanation is still that the kid ran, head completely down for some bizarre reason, at a cop with a gun. I can't fathom anyone being that idiotic. But that's apparently enough to satisfy everyone. Something isn't right with any of the explanations. None of them make any damn sense. Hence, I suspect everyone is lying, the truth is in the middle, and everyone is being shady. And that the cop still probably overplayed his hand. Still seems kind of shot the kid because he could to me.
This is just conjecture, but I vote for the double tap. The guy is running at you full force, you've already put four in his arm and he doesn't stop, you next shoot him in the eye, his head begins to drop as the double tap hits the head. I know back when I was at the range my double tap was within 1 inch of the original shot. If the guys head recoils back after being shot in the eye, it would then drop forward, and the next bullet would hit the head.
Just because the US Army tells you to do something stupid doesn't mean you have to do it.Primarily? Because of all the ridiculous lawsuits that people get away with in the US. Hell, people have even sued doctors for saving their lives; what a great society. When I was a soldier at Ft. Sam in medic school we were instructed NOT to perform emergency medical care on civilians if we were out in public and something happened, because of previous lawsuits.
Just because the US Army tells you to do something stupid doesn't mean you have to do it.
(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
If "moral conviction" stood up in a court martial, nobody would be convicted. Common sense might, but I don't think that applies in this case.If a direct order goes against a moral conviction or common sense then the order does not have to be followed. Please refer to the case of Lieutenant Calley and the My Lai Massace. And by the way, I too served in the US Army and know what I'm talking about.
Dealing with the general public is already bad. Imagine dealing with the psychopaths.
So, in the event of a medical emergency what "kicks in" your reasoning of Good Samaritan laws or your instinctive training as a medic? I'm sorry, I don't follow your argument.One could argue that it absolutely lines up with common sense, if you have any medical training good Samaritan laws do not apply to you and you can be held liable in the event that you make a mistake. As property of the US government, you can be held accountable for your conduct in or out of uniform. Common sense would dictate to let the chips fall where they may.
Do a Google search for "sued for saving life." It's not like there's not precedence.
... if you have any medical training good Samaritan laws do not apply to you ...
Does anyone know if this is true? This does not match my understanding of Good Samaritan laws.
Also people have been sued for not intervening when they could have - so really damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is pretty simple really - intervene where you have the training to do so by offering assistance. Just offer. If the person is not able to give consent, for example is unconscious, that is implied consent. At least that is how my CPR training went.
Does anyone know if this is true? This does not match my understanding of Good Samaritan laws.
Also people have been sued for not intervening when they could have - so really damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is pretty simple really - intervene where you have the training to do so by offering assistance. Just offer. If the person is not able to give consent, for example is unconscious, that is implied consent. At least that is how my CPR training went.
I've already gone over this. If you need to give someone an epipen, just give them a flu shot first. Then it's covered by protocol.At least in my jurisdiction, if you offer assistance up to the limits of your training, you are shielded by Good Samaritan law. So for most pharmacists, it would be providing CPR or first aid. It would NOT include administering an Epipen to someone who doesn't have an RX for it - this is a common example that is often cited. But a pharmacist could assist a patient with using his or her legally prescribed Epipen.