| Author | Message | ||
     Fb1 |
Was the officer pushed into his vehicle and assaulted therein? That's not been disputed, has it? Blake, we don't know exactly what happened. Thus, levying blame on Wilson is wrong, IMO. What we do know for a fact is Brown is dead and a police officer killed him. How that happened is a matter of conjecture... So Rocket, we've made some progress: Earlier you said that Wilson MURDERED Brown. Now you're saying we don't really know what led up to the shooting. Excellent. But I know one thing for sure. Had a gun not been involved no one would be dead. And how, exactly, do you know this? | ||
| Blake |
Sean, >>> with enough accuracy from distance he was able to kill Brown with a head shot. "from distance"? What distance would that be? Reports indicate that it was not so distant, more like very close. Certainly not like a sniper shooting someone in cold blood, the victim not threatening a soul, just helping a friend move his furniture. FB, I think we can surmise a bit more than that. There are no reports I've seen disputing that Wilson was pushed into his vehicle and viciously attacked there by Brown. Bottom line is that no matter how/where he was attacked, Wilson acting alone put himself in a position that allowed his attacker to gain advantage over him. He obviously wasn't prepared for a vicious violent reaction from Brown. That was a mistake. Cops can't hardly win. When they treat people with deference, they risk assault; when they treat people with due diligence, they are bad mouthed for being jerks. This case illustrates perfectly why they sometimes need to be jerks. Anyone prone to becoming a hothead should never ever be allowed to become a cop. But maybe there aren't enough really cool headed types who are willing to serve. | ||
| Sifo |
The witness reports do not say Brown was heading back towards a battered police officer now pointing a gun at him to go finish him off. Actually, that's exactly what witnesses have said. On video. Immediately after the shooting. I suspect the word on the street immediately after Brown's shooting is a lot more telling than that of the media. And yet you follow the information that has been spoon fed to you by the media instead of the word on the street, on video, immediately after the shooting. | ||
| Blake |
For Sean, the propaganda stooge:
"Another hit just above his right eye, exited near the eye, re-entered his face, exited near his jaw and then ended up in Brown’s upper chest or shoulder." "the shots could have been fired from at least 1 or 2 feet away" from http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-court s/did-michael-brown-have-his-hands-up-when-killed- by/article_f9904f19-dba5-58b4-ac4b-56b9bda29646.ht ml | ||
| Sifo |
One thing I remember from the Travon Martin shooting was when the autopsy report became public had to do with the distance of the shot. It was described as being a medium range shot or something like that. There was a lot of discussion about how that indicated that this proved it didn't happen during a struggle. To the medical examiner though, this meant a shot that wasn't where the barrel was in contact with the victim, but close enough for obvious powder burns right around the wound site. Basically a shot that was from a few inches away. Jump to this case, where no powder burns were found, that doesn't tell us much beyond the fact that it was probably at least a distance of a couple of feet. The medical examiner doesn't have much else to go by to estimate the range of a shot that is beyond a couple of feet at most. The investigation of the scene will have that in formation based on where shell casings fell, blood, etc. The police haven't made this information public yet. There's good reason to not make that public yet. It is very useful in determining the reliability of "witnesses". Reports of the distance of this shooting at this point are quite speculative. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Your beliefs in this matter are informed by bad sources. You persist in believing folk who are fundamentally incapable of telling the whole truth since their purpose requires lies. I know I won't change your mind on this since you have bought into the propaganda to the point you are emulating Lord Haw Haw. Let me give this EXACTLY the response it deserves. Your beliefs in this matter are informed by bad sources. You persist in believing folk who are fundamentally incapable of telling the whole truth since their purpose requires lies. I know I won't change your mind on this since you have bought into the propaganda to the point you are emulating middle America. Or something like that. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
What distance would that be? Enough distance for a seriously injured police officer with a broken eye socket to hit his target with fatal shots. But this argument somewhat misses the point of the police officer continuing on where Brown would either give up and be in custody, or shot and injured/dead. Simplified, the police officer took matters into his own hands - likely because he'd been beaten to the point only a gun would do if he were to do anything about it - and he did. He shot Brown. What do you imagine might happen if anyone in such a position went back for whatever reason? Only a fool would confront Brown again - unless they had a safety buffer. In this case a gun. You can argue the facts, or state I believe the propaganda, whatever that is. What is CLEAR to me is Brown would not have been dead by police officer Wilson's gun had police officer Wilson not confronted Brown a second time. In this second confrontation it is hard to see how police officer Wilson could possibly expected Brown not to have been shot by him. Just going by gut feeling, it's highly unlikely a giant of a kid who'd just beaten a police officer to a pulp whilst sat at the wheel of his patrol car was ever going to say "ok it's a fair cop, you got the gun, slap the cuffs on me bro". What is more likely is Brown ignoring any call to 'give up'. I think the police officer probably knew this. I wouldn't put it past the police officer to have thought ;f**k him I'm gonna shoot the bastard'. That would be murder Jerry! Which for the sake of doubt a police officer must know how it would look should this happen. Reason enough to wait for other police to arrive, or catch up with Brown later. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Now you're saying we don't really know what led up to the shooting. Excellent. I said it was only ever going to go one of two ways once the police officer confronted Brown for a second time. Brown got dead. The police officer going for a second bite of the cherry, he places a huge amount of responsibility upon himself for his actions, whatever they are, there after. For Brown to end up dead from shots fired by the police officer, must bring in to question WHAT DID THE POLICE OFFICER EXPECT TO HAPPEN. Rocket in England | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Rocket, no wonder you will be on your knees praying to Allah within a generation. Your logic eludes me. I've noticed the same thinking among heroin and crack addicts. (Message edited by ferris_von_bueller on September 20, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
Second bite? Huh? Can someone with a brain explain to me what he's talking about? I have not been paying attention to the b.s. the bad news guys have been putting out. I was under the impression the officer confronted 2 men walking in the street, was assaulted by the now dead criminal ( and that the officer had no idea he was a criminal who had just done a petty theft & assault ) and that he then shot the criminal. Witnesses including the other criminal have made widely different claims from widely different places and over a long period of time. It is expected to get different witness statements. It's simply the way it is and well proven. Some witness statements given weeks later are alleged to be put up lies by someone with a motive to cause trouble. The actual facts were not known and the legal investigations were not finished. Last I knew. Oh...and the very criminal social justice czar, aka the AG, is dishonest as is his boss so lets skip his b.s.. Please correct any thing above that is wrong. What second bite? | ||
| Court |
>>>>and that the officer had no idea he was a criminal who had just done a petty theft & assault The accounts I heard in the news were that the officer had no knowledge of the robbery that had just occurred. Additionally, the audio on the cell phone video indicated Brown was charging the office when shot. i listened to Dr. Baden's press conference and his opinion was that all shots were from the front. There was some question about the shot through the raised arm appearing as a "read entry", when in fact, it was in the back of an arm raised toward the officer who fired the shot. A relative of mine was recently involved in a similar shooting. But it was entirely justified and he dispatched the bad guy with a single shot to the chest as the attacked charged him. | ||
| Aesquire |
Yes the officer did not know of the robbery. What's with the "second bite" comment? Rocket's certainly not a belief that it's all about guns and his never meant the leftist propaganda he certainly never strongly defended and surely doesn't believe because he never said so attitude........aside, ( or at least that's the horribly mistaken point I got as I'm sure he'll point out) What the heck is he talking about? | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
There's only one issue which matters here. Was Brown's shooting justified? Brown was approached by a lone police officer who shouted commands at Brown from the driving seat of a police vehicle through an open window. Soon after, Brown assaulted police officer Wilson, who was still sat in his police vehicle. This a first point of contact between Brown and Wilson. Soon after assaulting police officer Wilson, Brown moved away. Quite how far Brown moved away appears to have been far enough for police officer Wilson to make a decision to confront Brown further. Evidenced by police officer Wilson leaving the safety of his police vehicle. It is known police officer Wilson was out of his vehicle when he shot Brown dead. Being out of his police vehicle would be a second confrontation if in further contact with Brown. Does a second contact not raise the question, could Brown's shooting have been avoided? If the answer to this question is yes, then there is reason enough to ask if Brown's shooting was necessary. From the propaganda I have swallowed it seems clear to me police officer Wilson would NEVER have got out of his police vehicle had he not had a gun. That police officer Wilson had to use his gun to shoot Brown suggests one of two things. Either Brown came back at police officer Wilson, or police officer Wilson confronted Brown. Either way, had police officer Wilson remained in his police vehicle, closed the windows, locked the doors, sat there holding his gun, waited for other police to arrive on scene, police officer Wilson would not have been further assaulted, and police officer Wilson would not have had cause to shoot Brown dead. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Rocket, no wonder you will be on your knees praying to Allah within a generation. Your logic eludes me. I've noticed the same thinking among heroin and crack addicts. Praying to Allah is wrong? With logic like yours there's no wonder there are many Islamists who dislike Americans. Rocket in England | ||
| D_adams |
Possibly, we're waiting on the grand jury to decide. Personally, I think it was.
Most officers ride alone, this country is just too damn big to patrol in pairs. What was shouted? Dunno. Patrol officer may have gotten a bolo for 2 men matching the description of the pair he just found, quite possibly for a strong arm robbery? Maybe he was asking for directions, I don't know, but I seriously doubt it. Why would he get out of the car if he's just asking if the pair knew anything about an incident at a store 10 minutes prior?
Firearm was discharged once inside the vehicle. Still holstered? Partially out? Who had their hand on it when it went off? Dunno, waiting on the grand jury once again. I can see the smaller of the pair pulling Brown away from the car "dude, come on, lets get out of here before you get shot!!!"
Car is now parked, officer has sustained a severe blow to the face (cracked occupital bone?) and possibly a concussion. Who knows, either way, he got his bell rung pretty good. Breaking someone's facial bones means it was a damn hard punch. Visual clarity probably wasn't all that good, but he could see they were fleeing, who knows what their pace was though. Could have been a walk, stumbling run (not likely) or flat out running away (again not likely). First contact is now over with. At that point, the gun is most likely drawn and pointed at them. The command to get down (minimizing the danger to both and allowing the officer to call for backup) may have been given, ie; "down on the ground NOW". This begins the "2nd contact" section. Bravado on the young man's part probably started up here. "whatcha gonna do cop, shoot me? Nope, I'll come back and beat your a$$ some more" followed by approching the cop in a threatening manner, ie; charging or bull rushing him. I'd say shooting at this point is justified. 300 lb 18 yr old man charging a 200 lb 30+ yr old, I'd fear for my life as well. Sure, he may have been as much as 25 feet away at the start of the shooting, but how much ground can you cover in 2 seconds? Me, 20 feet, maybe a little less. You, who knows, probably not a lot either. Guy in his physical prime? 20+ feet easy. You simply do not have a lot of time to make that decision, they have drills for it though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill Could it have been avoided? Sure, if the kid would have done as he was told and got down on the ground (face down, arms out) just like what you see on TV all the time. Why didn't he? After all, he's now facing assault and battery of a POLICE OFFICER. I'd say it's a lack of respect (common here nowadays) from crappy parenting. Yep, I'll put half the blame directly on the parents for this one, if not more. I'd guess he didn't get his a$$ beat properly as a kid and had zero respect for his elders or people in authority. The rest of the blame falls squarely on his shoulders though for getting overly aggressive and ATTACKING a police officer.
That's exactly what you've been swallowing all along. Propaganda.
I would guess the officer "confronted" him from a distance as stated above, although the distance is in question.
You are a bit of a pacifist, aren't you? When you're out-numbered or out-classed in size, do you just roll over every time? That's the reason police officers carry a gun, to EQUALIZE the fight if it happens. That's why I bring a gun to the fight as well. I don't intend to use it, but I want it there if I ever got assaulted. Doesn't matter if it's one or 5 assailants, I want to go home at the end of the day. I won't get there by being a pansy, I'll get there because I DEFENDED myself. | ||
| Aesquire |
Oh..thank you. What dipshut came up with that insane 2 contact theory? Logic chopping nonsense. What you are saying is that there was a break in the action after the criminal assaulted a police officer. Yes the officer did not know before he was assaulted he was dealing with a violent criminal. The officer knew nothing of the earlier robbery we have seen on tape. He certainly knew of the assault by a violent man on a police officer since he is still healing from it and may be permanently affected by same assault. Your contention SEEMS to be that the officer was in the wrong to try and stop a violent criminal ( assault on a police officer) which is the officers job and arguably duty. At that point we lack detail ( and have fragmentary conflicting witness accounts. .......which is what witness accounts always are ) on the actions of the violent criminal in the particulars of his actions after a violent assault and before he was shot in the arm, from in front per autopsy. And the head, which killed him. The physical evidence shows the officer did not shoot the criminal as he was running away. So. We have no proof the officer was or was not justified in shooting the criminal. We have ample evidence the officer was justified in arresting the man who just assaulted a person...the officer himself. If the criminal was meekly surrendering and the officer then shot him out of panic or anger or demonic possession..... then the officer is guilty and should be prosecuted tried and imprisoned. If the criminal was coming back toward the officer against orders to stop and be arrested then the shooting is justified. Self defense. As to the pray to Baal or whoever comment it's obviously a mocking insult to you for your "usefulness" (as Stalin put it ) in defending and believing the lies of the Jihadi on the Ukraine thread . Since I myself have insulted you that way multiple times your deliberate obtuse fake incomprehension is pretty silly. Which, to be fair is one reason I so insult you. I love our English allies and am in sorrow how the lying sack who is our elected Premier treats our best friends. | ||
| Sifo |
This is probably one of the most untainted accounts of what happened that will ever be found... http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness- recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-fer guson-shooting/ It's a witness describing what he saw happen, right after it happened. It comes from a resident of the neighborhood. He saw the fight happening at the cop's vehicle. He saw Brown running away. He saw the cop chasing him. He saw Brown turn and start heading back at the cop again. He then saw the cop shooting Brown. He actually said he thought the cop kept missing him as he kept shooting and Brown kept advancing. Is this an accurate account? That's yet to be determined, but keep a few things in mind. I see no reason for this person to be deceptive about the account while discussing it with another neighbor. This was untainted by the race baiting that went on soon after the event. His account seems to match physical evidence that has been made public so far, and he is even explaining why the body is laying in a position that looks like he was heading toward the cop when he fell. This accounting of the event was completely insulated from the accounting of the event that the cop would later give, yet seems to mesh very well with the cops story. Where Rocket gets his version of events from, I have no clue. Personally, I think he's doing what he claimed he was doing in the thread on Ukraine. Posting crap that he doesn't even believe. What he really believes about this event doesn't really matter to me. He's little more that a troll trying to stir the pot. He completely ignores known facts that are repeatedly put in front of him. Should the cop have gotten out of the squad in the first place? It's considered good policing by many to have face to face contact instead of just being seen in squads. It creates much better report with the public by doing this. Could the cop have reasonably expected that he would be brutally attacked as he exited his squad car to have a face to face discussion with two people about not walking in the middle of the street? I don't really think so. Sadly this whole thing has been incredibly distorted by those who refuse to accept that the thugs brought this on. They wont even acknowledge that we are talking about a thug. There's been a deliberate effort to paint the thug as a gentile giant of a kid who was looking forward to going to college, and the cop as some trigger happy maniac high on authority. The reality is we are talking about a cop with years worth of unblemished job history, and a thug who just minutes before was physically assaulting a store owner while stealing from that store owner, and was found by the cop acting stupidly in the middle of the street. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Where Rocket gets his version of events from, I have no clue. Odd as I happen to accept your witness report as likely the same account I've swallowed. Personally, I think he's doing what he claimed he was doing in the thread on Ukraine. Posting crap that he doesn't even believe. What he really believes about this event doesn't really matter to me. He's little more that a troll trying to stir the pot. He completely ignores known facts that are repeatedly put in front of him. Don't talk so f**king stupid. Troll my arse. You and several others just don't like hearing an opposed opinion which offends your own. Perhaps even more so when the person is not an American. Get a clue FFS. Could the cop have reasonably expected that he would be brutally attacked as he exited his squad car to have a face to face discussion with two people about not walking in the middle of the street? No, but he could have the second time, after being beaten to a pulp by the person he first attempted to speak to. Which of course, is why he took a gun with him this second time. A raised and pointed one at that. Somewhat a crucial point when a persons life might be at stake, whether that person is a thug or not. Sadly this whole thing has been incredibly distorted by those who refuse to accept that the thugs brought this on. They wont even acknowledge that we are talking about a thug. There's been a deliberate effort to paint the thug as a gentile giant of a kid who was looking forward to going to college, and the cop as some trigger happy maniac high on authority. Why does it matter the person being a thug? A thug is entitled to life as much as any other person is. So, perhaps this is because people realise the cop placed himself in a position where his further involvement would result in his gun being discharged, making him a person who decides in this instance who deserves to live, or die, as events turned out. If this is acceptable behaviour of a cop with "years worth of unblemished job history" it is giving license for cops to kill who they consider to be thugs should an opportunity for them to shoot arise. The cop should have remained in his vehicle until other officers arrived. Not to do so puts him in a position where his presence could risk further confrontation. It did. The cop had to shoot to prevent further confrontation bringing harm to himself. If this isn't murder in the first degree, it is in the second - save for this being a cop of course - which by any other description is an execution if applying first or second degree. It is not my opinion. It is a perspective that is every bit a consideration as any other which could be presented based on what's been said, whether factual or not. Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
Why does it matter the person being a thug? A thug is entitled to life as much as any other person is. Not when they are applying potentially deadly force against someone else. That's when they forfeit that right. If this isn't murder in the first degree, it is in the second - save for this being a cop of course - which by any other description is an execution if applying first or second degree. It is not my opinion. No, that is nothing but your opinion. An opinion that is completely wrong. Attacking someone like that opens it up to defending yourself. It's called self defense dumb ass. That's a matter of law, probably even in England. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
What dipshut came up with that insane 2 contact theory? Logic chopping nonsense. A person able to understand it could be seen as two incidents occurring. Incident one, inside police vehicle. Incident two, outside police vehicle. Given the police vehicle offers police officer Wilson sanctuary after a serious assault from the now retreating assailant. Which is why I said six post ago "I believe if you take the incident as two separate ones you might begin to see where the cops actions could be seen as problematic" Perhaps you should polish up on your reading comprehension before calling me a dipshit. Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
A rose by any other name... | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Not when they are applying potentially deadly force against someone else. That's when they forfeit that right. The incident you describe had passed. The assailants rights are back in force. No, that is nothing but your opinion. An opinion that is completely wrong. Attacking someone like that opens it up to defending yourself. It's called self defense dumb ass. That's a matter of law, probably even in England. I would be so dumb if I thought self defense were necessary by use of a gun once the assailant had retreated. In England, and the entire United Kingdom, this would be seen as murder, as I suspect it will be in the U.S. should it be seen as two separate incidents, which is why I draw attention to such. Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
The incident you describe had passed. The assailants rights are back in force. I see you are right back to rejecting what is probably the best eyewitness account of the incident that has been made public. So soon after making this claim too... Odd as I happen to accept your witness report as likely the same account I've swallowed. A witness who's story matches not only the cops story extremely well, but also matches the physical evidence that has been made public too. I would be so dumb if I thought self defense were necessary by use of a gun once the assailant had retreated. In England, and the entire United Kingdom, this would be seen as murder, as I suspect it will be in the U.S. should it be seen as two separate incidents, which is why I draw attention to such. By your own description, this would be self defense, not of a person who simply attacked a cop, but attacked a cop TWICE! TWO SEPARATE TIMES according to you. | ||
| Daddio |
I've refrained from commenting on this thread, until now. I spent 25 years, 8 months and 20 days (but who's counting) as a police officer in a city much larger than Ferguson, MO., and IMO, Sifo (above) hit the nail squarely on the head. I can't see it as uncommon that a cop driving down the street would yell out,"get outta the street!" to two men whose only violation known at the time is jaywalking. Stopping, and getting out of the car would, at that point, be considered less confrontational. If, Officer Wilson did indeed reverse then park his car after such a 'drive-by' warning, then one of the two erstwhile pedestrians had done something to escalate the situation. Wilson, still unaware that the pair had just robbed a convenience store (theft by force or threat of force) would or should have indicated by computer or radio that he was on a pedestrian stop. In most urban areas, such stops are handled solo; the more cops that show up tends to lend an air of escalation. If you've ever been stopped by police while walking or driving, has more than one police car responded? If so, what did you think? So, here we have Officer Wilson, attempting to call out (radio) a ped stop, or, more likely, type-in (computer, MDT, whatever) the info when 300 pound teenager leans into the open car window again escalating the contact , and punches Wilson at least once. Wilson does not have the option to just roll up the windows, turn up the AC and listen to some soft rock on the stereo while waiting for back-up to arrive. He has a duty to at least try to maintain at least visual contact with his assailant, so he exits his police car. Since ha had just been assaulted, he has his weapon drawn, and, presumably, orders the assailant to stop. As far as is known, up to this time Wilson still has no idea who this kid is, all that he knows is that the kid is dangerous. The kid (Brown) indeed stops and turns toward Wilson and then is summarily executed by Wilson (the race-baiters scenario,) or charges at Wilson and is shot several times until he drops dead. Just my previously professional 2 cents. I just thank God I was able to retire relatively unscathed, and I thank my fellow men who have some appreciation for what cops go through. (Message edited by daddio on September 21, 2014) | ||
| Kenm123t |
Guys Forget trying discuss this with Rocket. He just likes it. Europe is headed back to the cesspool from which it came. Too late to be saved they will fight tooth and nail to be condescending sheep! Ever wonder why they hate us so much and blame us with the worlds Ills? Look at most of the worlds trouble spots and you will find the left overs of the European Colonies. Easier to blame us than admit they screwed up the world for a 500 years The Longest period of peace in Europe was when they had their heads down and asses covered waiting for the Russians and the Americans to be dueling with tanks in the Fulda Gap! One of the sources that pollutes our country came from Germany when the Frankfurt School was shut down and the profs went to American academia. We have our own sources Margret Sanger is a prime example! But we are trying correct these issues Europeans revel in their vile depravity. Look at the Barbarians of the British health Service that pursued a family to Spain in order to PREVENT a child from getting treatment. The NHS said they didnt want to treat the child and were going to let him die. Parents were arrested in Spain detained 4 days and were released when another hospital would perform the surgery. NHS wanted the child to die Barbarians These folks have no morality at all Forget being Christians Hell alligators will fight for their young. Let the Muslims have them Europe is not worth the life of one American Serviceman. | ||
| Sifo |
Guys Forget trying discuss this with Rocket. He just likes it. Europe is headed back to the cesspool from which it came. True enough. Little but a troll. Who here can even believe his BS that in England the cops would just let a thug like this beat down a cop and simply let him walk away. Pure BS! (Message edited by SIFO on September 21, 2014) | ||
| Tootal |
That's a good point. Remember when Britain was disarmed and then the German's came a knocking? Americans sent there own personal arms along with our government to rearm them. The war is over, Winston Churchill is no longer a worthy subject and they allow themselves to be disarmed again! Now it's not the German's knocking is it? Seems funny how when the Brit's were allowed to have weapons the "Bobby's" didn't need them. Once they banned the guns the Bobby's needed guns. Why would that be? I live 20 miles from Ferguson and also have a friend who is a police officer who was there. The national media is feeding you a bunch of crapola! Just wait and see as when the truth comes out they will look like fools. | ||
| Court |
Having had a relative recently shot and kill a suspect..... I'm getting a bit of a personal glimpse into all this. My thinking is that.....even on the most justified.... As to be beyond question.... Shooting by a police officer..... That it still extracts a heck of a toll on the cop.. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Wilson does not have the option to just roll up the windows, turn up the AC and listen to some soft rock on the stereo while waiting for back-up to arrive. Oh he does. He always had a choice. More so considering he had a smashed eye socket and likely other painful injuries. As a police officer on duty, and one just assaulted by the assailant, it's understandable duty calls. But with that duty comes a huge responsibility. One that would likely end up with him discharging his firearm. He did. He didn't shoot the assailant in the legs. In the belly even. He shot to kill. That much is obvious. It is also what will seal police officer Wilson's fate should he be facing the courts for a criminal act. Rocket in England | ||
| Tootal |
The only thing a police officer has that commands respect is the fact that everybody knows if you attack an officer he has the right to defend himself with deadly force. Police are trained to shoot center mass and to keep shooting until the threat is gone. That's when you are face down on the ground, like he told you to do before you attacked him! The fact is he did try to shoot to kill but he was so injured his vision was not the best. I mean what was it, four times in the arm? That's not where he was trying to hit! The officer was also the shooting instructor, I'm sure had he not been injured he would not have needed to shoot that many times. |
