Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front

I am not "missing the point." But as I said...the change in you is definitely not for the better.

The pleasantness of my character, or lack thereof, is also beside the point whether Wilson's shooting of Brown was justified --- or not.

I have not addressed the issue of whether or not Wilson's shooting of Brown was justified or not...so I have no idea of why you are raising that issue. I do not have anywhere near the information necessary to make a reasonable address on that point.

I have addressed the fact that I think six bullets into the body of Brown, who essentially was stopped for jaywalking, SEEMS excessive. (I think it is excessive, in case you missed that.)

I have also addressed the fact (perhaps not in these words) that you have become a boor, Thomas.

What's absurd is that you think asking professionals about a procedure in LE would lead to a bias answer. Not much respect for your family in Blue huh?

Based on what you are saying, we should never again ask for a professional opinion, it could lead to an answer Frank isn't happy with and won't believe unless it is the answer he has already come up with.

If you were going to ask someone about computers, do you instead go to McDonald's and ask for their unbiased opinion? No you ask someone who works on or with PC's and a daily basis, they are the expert.


Besides, it wasn't about if Wilson was right to shoot Brown, it was to ask them about procedure. You know, how they go about doing things... ASK ABOUT THE PROCEDURE. Which is exactly what I said in my post and you so nicely provided. Read the bottom line again PROCEDURE is what I was asking about. That isn't a judgement opinion, that is what they are suppose to do and how they are trained.

WHY DON'T YOU ASK THEM ABOUT PROCEDURE?

I have lots of respect for them...and at the same time, I expect them to honor the tradition of fraternity that exists among law enforcement people.

In any case...I HAVE NOT QUESTIONED the procedures. That is a red-herring you are bringing up because you have no response to what I said about asking them about this situation being absurd.



You can ask any professional for an opinion...and nothing I have said would suggest that I am against doing that.]

I am saying that police officers stick together on questions like this...and I doubt I could rely on their answer to be impartial.

Could I ask you to take Al Sharpton's considerations to be impartial?



What does this have to do with the fraternity attitude of police officers????




Why do that? I agree with you about the procedures. I just think six slugs in this young man who was essentially stopped for walking in the street...SEEMS EXCESSIVE.

So stop making crap up, Baldimo...and man up on this one.




Where have we differed on procedure, Baldimo? Where?

Why would you suggest I ask about that...when we are in agreement for the most part?

I just think the response seemed excessive?

I suspect anyone with a brain would also.



Why?

If you question whether 6 bullets were to many, then you question the procedure. This is why I said ask about the procedure. What does the training say about such a situation when you have a subject running at you after you have been attacked?

Remember this is the Officer Wilsons version of the story. Did he follow procedure according to the situation as he saw it?

I never asked you to get their opinions. I know better than that.

No...it is possible to suggest that six bullets in the guy seems excessive...and not question the procedure.

The procedure, Baldimo, is to stop the threat...not to kill the guy.

But you are never going to concede that...so we will keep at this for as long as you want.

My opinion will stand that six bullets into a young man essentially stopped for jaywalking seems excessive.

Asking that question is an absurdity under these circumstances.





No matter what it says...six bullets into the guy SEEMS excessive to me. And that is not questioning the procedure...although it may be questioning the officer's competence. And on that question, I would put no more stock in the opinions of fellow police officers than you would in the opinion of Al Sharpton.

Get over it, Baldimo...my comments here make complete sense.




How do you know Officer Wilson's version of the story? I don't know it. And I would be no more inclined to accept his version of the story than I would Brown's buddy...which is to say, probably both versions would be biased.

There is a lot riding on this, you realize.



Well since we agree on procedure (if shooting is necessary, shoot at the body mass and shoot until the threat is stopped)...there is no reason for me to ask anything.

But even considering that...the six bullets in the young man seems excessive to me. I suspect if I asked my relative (or your relative or any cops) they would say, "No it doesn't seem excessive"...just as if you were to ask Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson...they would probably say it does seem excessive.

True, and this is one of the tv sites I watch when I can along with listening to the bbc still with a grain of salt.

I like the NEWS HOUR...and probably do not watch it nearly enough. I had a discussion with my sister yesterday...and she indicated that the BBC has gotten a bit seedy. I do not watch the BBC myself.

MSNBC and FoxNEWS...are abominations when it comes to even-handedness.

CNN...has become a joke. I am wondering if the National Enquirer bought it. And I am expecting a story about Al Capone's vault any day.

This isent really addressed to you but the gun nut who stated that someone could get off 6 shots in .27 seconds is what I believe he said. If he had an fully auto weapon perhaps but with a semi auto pistol 3 seconds min. And that would be just pulling the trigger as fast as one could. Have you noticed how the gun nuts batter the truth out of shape?

3 seconds for 6 shots? That seems a little slow for someone with training. If you are pulling the trigger with no regard for your aim, .27 seconds seems reasonable. 3 second for 6 shots sounds more like rapid fire of a double action revolver.

I've been to a bunch of ranges, and you almost always have that douche bag who shoots as fast as he can. You would be surprised how many rounds you can get down range if you pull the trigger as fast as you can.

You should check out some of the shooting video's on youtube.com. Professional can pull that trigger faster than you can count and they happen to hit everything they shoot at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7W-5QE3jzw

6 rounds in 1 sec!

I stand corrected. I guess the cop should have let a car do the job for him. But he dident get shot for jaywalking. He got it for stupidity and attacking a cop. Lets drop all the peripheral stuff and wait for the jury to come in on the facts as the law enforcement presents them. But it wont, in my opinion, make any difference because he has already been convicted by the media no matter what the jury says.

But you already do that with every one of your posts.

How in the hell would you know what credibility means? I am sure you know what lying means since you do so so often.

Excessive Frank. Thomas said no such thing. What he did say was he was justified to keep on firing if he was attacked until Brown was down.

Frank doesn't like it when people take things to the extreme, unless it is his silly ass extremes that are the subject. Then they all seem sensible. Like asking cops about shooting vs non-shooting procedures. That is ridiculous... but asking if he should have reloaded and then kept firing is a logical question...

Baldy this might surprise you since I dont get on here with the rest of the gun nuts but I have handled guns and know how fast to pull the trigger for accuracy. .27 seconds is nothing more than BS by another person thinking he is making a point when anyone with a brain knows he is full shyt. We are talking about a semi auto pistol, not a fully automatic weapon.

Yeah, maybe a bit over the top.

But considering some of the crap being peddled here...I though I would join the fun.

But you are right...I suspect Thomas might object if Wilson had reloaded and popped another nine rounds into Brown.

Whether or not your dire prediction proved true (and I'm not arguing that it won't) the problems that will give rise to it can't be solved by this case, and I'm afraid that there are some who mistakenly believe that a conviction of Wilson somehow will.

I suppose an abstract argument might be made that if the conviction of an innocent cop would put an end to the seething anger and resentment of African-Americans, the injustice would be "worth it," but, of course, Wilson is not an abstraction, he's a man of flesh and blood with family, friends and, possibly, a long life ahead of him.

In any case, the argument would be ridiculous because whether or not he is innocent, his conviction will not solve any of the problems. The very next time a white person kills a black person and the black community suspects there is any possibility that the white person will not be prosecuted and convicted, Ferguson will be repeated. Perhaps not to the same extent or perhaps in an even worse way.

Unfortunately, the black community in this case has largely decided already that Wilson is guilty and they will not believe that justice has been served, in any way, unless he is convicted. It won't matter what evidence is presented that exonerates him. It won't matter if the trial appears, in all ways, to be fair. They are not prepared to accept a not-guilty verdict.

Whether or not such a verdict results in the behavior that the totally irresponsible State Senator Jamilah Nasheed has predicted or the demonstrators chanting "No Justice, No Peace" have warned remains to be seen. I was pleasantly surprised by the peaceful reaction to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, and may be here as well, but in that case, Zimmerman was tried and there was a relatively long period of time between the initial media circus and the result. If Wilson should not be indicted by the grand jury, I can't see how all hell won't break out. For this reason I think that regardless of the evidence, he will be indicted.

It’s a depressing situation because I really don’t see how it can be resolved. I suppose that with sufficient time it will solve itself, but that will be decades, not years. Nothing can be done to affect a short term solution. It doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be efforts, and that it should be ignored, but it’s not a simple problem. If we could somehow eliminate, overnight, all instances wherein cops unjustly treat African-Americans, the problem still wouldn’t be solved. At this point a large segment of the African-American community believe that most encounters between police and their members (particularly young black men) involve some level of injustice, and there are too many professional agitators who make their livings stoking rage and resentment. I don’t think Obama has done all he can do, but I’m not one who thinks he has made matters worse. Eric Holder on the other hand…

We'll see where this goes.