tvc184

  Actually most of this entire fiasco can be summed up in that three word statement. 

  Which is really all that matters. 

  Obviously you aren't thinking clearly. The officers could have shot him in the fingernails on his strong hand, causing him to drop the knife and give up. 

Any of the above.   With absolutely nothing to back it up except personal experience from so many years ago that it is probably not valid, the top two if it might be in saltwater. 

  I think a lot of these sidewalk commandos need to sign up for the next police civil service test and show us how it's done. 

  He probably ran home after the shooting and had his wife hit him in the head with a baseball bat to try and justify the shooting. 

If Brown tried to get the officer's gun and briefly walked away a few feet and then came back at the officer then in my opinion deadly force is justified. It is just as a jury ruled in the Zimmerman case when Martin was "unarmed" and just like a grand jury ruled when the off duty officer in Orange shot the "unarmed" man. That has not been shown yet. Unfortunately there are many people that do not know the law and/or do not care about the law as long as a political agenda is met.

.......... and Shepard Smith is the king idiot. 

  I have seen some of the most idiotic statements from Fox reporters and guests. 

  ......... or you could just go ahead and take "the" test, I think next month. 

  6'4 1/2" and 290

  A lot easier in a confined unit.    On the streets that may be armed and a guy is 6'5" 300........... 

  With 4-5 working at one time?

  Nowhere.

    What kind of admin?   We have departments under admin that might have openings like dispatcher. 

  ..... or he was 25 feet away lunging at you. 

  What does that have to do with the premise of the article? 

  Actually Michael Baden said it was from front to back. It entered near the right eye, existed at the jaw and went into the shoulder. That is not back to front. 

  One article said an "exchange" of gunfire. I think that implicates a shootout. 

Here is the Garrity Statement that we type on our internal investigations:   Garrity Statement On_________ (date/time) at ________________ (place), I was ordered to give this statement (report) by ____________________ (name/rank). I give this Statement (report) at his/her order as a condition of employment. I understand that I may face disciplinary action for disobeying this order so I have no alternative but to abide by the order.  It is my belief and understanding that the Department requires this statement (report) solely and exclusively for internal purposes and will not release it to any other person or agency. It is my further belief that this statement (report) will not and cannot be used against me in any criminal proceedings. For any and all other purposes, I hereby reserve my rights as provided by the United States Constitution and any other rights prescribed by law. Further, I rely specifically upon the protection afforded me under Garrity Vs. New Jersey 385 U.S. 439 (1967).

  On an interesting note (maybe), when the police are forced to give a statement for an internal investigation (such as a shooting), the officers normally types a notice on the statement that says the officer is being forced to give the statement for internal reasons only and he does not give up his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. It protects officers from being forced to give internal statements that may implicate them and being fired for invoking their constitutional rights.   The interesting part? It is called the "Garrity" warning.    [Hidden Content]

It has been said that starvation is a strong motivator.    I believe that is a very true statement. There has to be some motivation for people to do almost anything. When a person has a place to stay and has food in his stomach, he is less likely in my opinion to go the extra mile to find a job or other means of support. It is much easier to sit back when someone else is paying the bill.    The only point of this article was that the ending of many benefits motivated many more people to start working, maybe at lesser jobs than they left or would have taken if available. If you are not eating or have no roof over your head, how much will you struggle to make ends meet as opposed to having that means brought to your door free of effort or obligation?    The single time that Obama is mentioned in the article (and Democrats not at all) is that he it touting the decrease in the unemployment rate. The article said that no matter your politics, that is a good thing. It points out that it is possible that part of that decrease in unemployment is due to the ending of benefits.    I see that as nothing to do with Obama or politics except making a single point that unemployment benefits may tend to slow recovery rather than speed it up.    It poses this statement, "It’s worth wondering why".    The article appears to be me to be a statement of facts, that unemployment went down after some benefits ended and pondered whether the two are linked. I can't see that as inflammatory or very political and mainly states that it is a valid topic for debate. It certainly wasn't some hammering of Obama who is only mentioned once and the article agreed with him that it is good that unemployment went down no matter which party you support. 

    I would be willing to bet that all shots were fired in less than 2 seconds. 

When something sensational happens in the news or even when it happens on a personal level, people tend to make up or believe  their own statistics.    A few years ago a guy fled from one of our officers in a vehicle, a felony. He called a couple of hours later to complain on the officer and give his explanation of why he ran (he was still not in custody). The man said that he fled in fear of his life because that officer is well known for beating up and killing people. He followed up with a statement something like, "Everyone knows that". As part of my preliminary investigation as a supervisor, I asked him to name the people that he has killed and beaten up because to my knowledge our department had not gotten a single report or complaint of abuse by the officer and we hadn't been involved in a deadly force situation in several years.... the last being before that officer was hired. The caller then went on to say that I was twisting his words and taking up for the officer. I said quite to the contrary, I have not said a single thing to take up for the officer and ask for his information to start what sounded like a serious investigation. I then told him that to verify that what he said, our entire conversation was on a recorded phone line (and it was). The next thing I heard?   CLICK!!   While that is but a single incident and has no bearing on any other investigation, it shows what I see at work no so infrequently. It is easy to spit out lies, accusations or even believed to be true assumptions. It is quite different to have facts to back them up.     And what about valid abuse complaints? I witnessed abuse by an officer and he was terminated almost immediately and charges were submitted to the DA against the officer. 

So the preliminary autopsy results are released and all wounds to Brown were in the front. That kind of negates many of the witnesses that claim Brown was walking away with his hands in the air.   Then it shows the round entered near his right eyes but exited at the jaw showing that it was going downward and then it entered a shoulder. Since Brown was facing the officer and standing (according to witnesses), it tends to indicate that Brown's head was down as if he was leaning toward the officer.    The autopsy alone means nothing but now that facts are starting to come out it seems to look quite a bit different than the claimed "eye witnesses". Apparently some of them did not see what they stated and merely claimed to be witnesses or they outright lied.    It does not exonerate the officer as it still comes down to what the justifications were of using that amount of force but it sure shows another angle of the story. According to a report on CNN, Jesse Jackson calls the autopsy report "inflammatory". Why Jesse, because it might back up the officer's claim that Brown was coming back at him?