Further reports from the state pitched into a shooting war?

There are good cops i have certainly met good cops but there are also people who join up to get a power trip out of wearing a badge and the public needs protection from those types

These protests are not about the shooting dead of a boy...they are about systemic police brutality

We had EXACTLY the same occur here in the UK already as if these things are all scripted!

We had the police shooting down an unarmed man and then the releasing of false information regarding the details around the case follwed by counter claims and so on; people rose up in large numbers in cities across England and rioted because they are sick and tired of being brutalised by the police

The shooting of the guy was simply the trigger to cause the spilling over of tensions that had been building up over a period of time

An inside police investigation called Operation Tiberius has revealed systemic corruption within the London police force showing it has links to organised crime and freemasonry

Police brutality and militarisation are what these protests are about regardless of how the mainstream corporate media wants to try and spin it

I guess maybe this is the first time that I might say that being from Canada might be tainting my view. Not that there isn't police brutality here, but we really haven't dealt with something like this here. And I've heard stories from my military friends that they do screen for people who have overt aggression issues, and tend to let them in and foster that. But at the same time, my friends are such good people- so I see both sides. And maybe it's the patriotism in me, that I don't like to colour the whole lot the same.
 
There's been reports of paid rioters- which is scary.

At the same time, I think the whole situation is extremely complicated. Reports now show that the officer wasn't in the wrong, and people are coming forward to support the officer's story. I'm not ruling out the government pushing this narrative, but it does suggest that maybe it was just a shitty situation that went wrong. I also think that there are a few individuals making this situation bad. Hearing some first hand reports of what's going on there, it sounds like a scary situation.

Paid rioters?

Intriguing.

The thing about the US I dont forget? Oklahoma City Bombing. That element didnt just disappear. They are there and they are interested in using any destabilising incident to their own advantage.
 
There's a bunch of different stories going around, but there is suggestion that Michael Brown attacked the officer at first (and went for the officer's gun), and then it just went down hill. I don't think the shots to kill were necessary, or more than one shot- but I do wonder if the situation may have gotten out of hand and just spiralled into this mess because the officer wasn't calm- it might have just been a bad mistake, rather than a nefarious plan.

I think the resulting situations have been people taking advantage of this tragic accident for their own gains :(

^ I do believe that's happening, I think that happens all the time.

Although one thing I would say is that I've had to try and de-escalate situations a lot and attempt some sort of communication with aggressive people, either reactive or proactively aggressive, generally some mix of the two is present in most confrontations and often there is a point reached were you have to make difficult decisions about whether you can sustain attempts to de-escalate or if you need to think about how to end it quickly, which in a situation in which there's firearms could involve the use of deadly force, I dont know about that because that's a different story.

Its an unenviable position to be in and I dont know about supervision of police in the states or other ways of checking individuals resilence and competence but I'd expect that the cops who are wanting to pop caps and kill people are pretty few and far between.
 
I guess maybe this is the first time that I might say that being from Canada might be tainting my view. Not that there isn't police brutality here, but we really haven't dealt with something like this here. And I've heard stories from my military friends that they do screen for people who have overt aggression issues, and tend to let them in and foster that. But at the same time, my friends are such good people- so I see both sides. And maybe it's the patriotism in me, that I don't like to colour the whole lot the same.

Canada, the UK and Australia are all part of the same corporate web that rules the US

But perhaps the US has been placed under the most pressure

I'm not saying all cops are bad but i'm saying there is a culture being created in the police now that reflects a military mindset which is one of aggression and killing your enemy

There are fresh cases of police brutality coming out of the US all the time. Shooting of unarmed people...all caught on camera...its all there for people to see for their own eyes

They're shooting people down instead of de-escalating situations and they're shooting to kill not wound
 
He shot the guy 6 times, twice in the head

Try shooting a moving target who is within arms length (going for your gun) twice in the head and 4 times in the body in a scuffle

It's an execution
Your either biased or don't know much about guns.
 
I heard they shot an unarmed kid 6 times, twice in the head

That is an expression of a police policy of 'shoot to kill' instead of 'shoot to wound'

That policy is coming from up the chain of command and the footsoldiers carrying out those orders are being protected by their 'superiors'

Many of the soldiers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanisatn traumatised are being recruited into the police which is itself being increasingly militarised.

The police are then being trained to view the american public through a paranoid lens as 'the enemy' which they must wage war upon

Shooting to wound is rarely a supported doctrine here. There's basically no such thing. If you need to stop somebody but don't want to risk killing them, you use something else that isn't a gun.

If you're using a gun shooting lethal ammo then you're ready to kill the target if necessary. If they survive great but once you enter the stage of lethal weaponry, you're no longer concerned about avoiding death of the target.
 
Your either biased or don't know much about guns.

It's very difficult to hit a head sized object that is weaving about, twice, especially if it is close enough to 'go for your gun'
 
Shooting to wound is rarely a supported doctrine here. There's basically no such thing. If you need to stop somebody but don't want to risk killing them, you use something else that isn't a gun.

If you're using a gun shooting lethal ammo then you're ready to kill the target if necessary. If they survive great but once you enter the stage of lethal weaponry, you're no longer concerned about avoiding death of the target.

So why are police habitually skipping past the non lethal solutions and going straight for the kill shot?
 
So why are police habitually skipping past the non lethal solutions and going straight for the kill shot?
That's how a lot of them are trained lately, TBH. First response to a perceived threat often tends to be lethal. That's just how they do. Less lethal techniques are used mainly for forced compliance, not for self defense.

Edit:
Also there was apparently a bill asking for officers to shoot limbs instead of body a.k.a. "shooting to wound". This isn't scientifically, tactically, nor medically sound. Non-lethal areas are harder to aim for. Limbs carry arteries that can kill the person if severed. There's greater chance of overpenetration, putting the surrounding area and bystanders at greater risk.

However the two best arguments against it are these: http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

• "Successful" shots that don't persuade an offender to quit leave the officer still in peril. When we know from street experience that even multiple center-mass hits don't always stop determined, deranged or drugged attackers, "how many officers would be murdered by offenders who get shot in a limb and are still fully capable of shooting back?" Chudwin asks. Indeed, Avery believes that shooting an offender without incapacitating him "may just infuriate him, so he doubles his effort to kill you. There is no dependable correlation between wounding someone and making them stop."

• "Shooting to wound reflects a misapplication of police equipment. "Less-lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose," Avery says. "If you deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody without incapacitating them, you're using the wrong tool for that job. Also if you shoot them in the arm or leg and you destroy muscle tissue, shatter bone or destroy nerve function you have maimed that person for life. Now attorneys can play the argument of 'cruel and unusual punishment' and pursue punitive damages for destroying the capacity of your 'victim' to earn wages and so on. You don't try to just wound people with a gun. Period."
 
Last edited:
That's how a lot of them are trained lately, TBH. First response to a perceived threat often tends to be lethal. That's just how they do. Less lethal techniques are used mainly for forced compliance, not for self defense.

This is what i mean...there is a change in attitude....a change in the training and the culture it creates

It's a new aggressive approach towards the public who are being treated as if they are the enemy

But its not the public who have crashed the economy...the public are not the bad guys
 
Muir pic.webp
 
Your either biased or don't know much about guns.

I hear a lot of that naive logic from people totally unfamiliar with guns, or for that matter crisis situations or violence, although I do blame a lot of the cinematic impressions of firearms and violent situations for that, totally unrealistic magic bullets and zen calm under fire/threat, all the time.
 
I hear a lot of that naive logic from people totally unfamiliar with guns, or for that matter crisis situations or violence, although I do blame a lot of the cinematic impressions of firearms and violent situations for that, totally unrealistic magic bullets and zen calm under fire/threat, all the time.

I have had to deal with many violent situations in a work capacity and i have handled a variety of firearms including military grade weapons

I do not have unrealistic ideas of what is going on regarding police shootings in the US as the media i keep an eye on is awash with footage of police shootings

The alternative media has been concerned about the militarisation of the police for years and has been keeping an eye on the increase in police brutality

The argument is that the boy was killed in a messy scuffle where clean shots are difficult to get

It sounds to me that 2 shots to the head and 4 shots to the body is acheived by firing follow up shots on top of the initial incapacitating shots...which is an execution (intent to kill not to incapacitate)
 
I have had to deal with many violent situations in a work capacity and i have handled a variety of firearms including military grade weapons

X Box does not count Muir, seriously.
 
It sounds to me that 2 shots to the head and 4 shots to the body is acheived by firing follow up shots on top of the initial incapacitating shots

This is fundamentally incorrect. Lol. Classic muir. There are plenty of possible circumstances in which this situation would happen in a fight without it being an execution shot. You just don't want to consider that possibility because it contradicts your perception of the world. Carful muir, your confirmation bias is showing.....
 
This is fundamentally incorrect. Lol. Classic muir. There are plenty of possible circumstances in which this situation would happen in a fight without it being an execution shot. You just don't want to consider that possibility because it contradicts your perception of the world. Carful muir, your confirmation bias is showing.....

It works on different levels of consciousness

A policeman/woman doesn't need to be thinking ''I am a tool of the NWO and i am going to shoot to kill any civilian who messes with me''

They can often just be operating in a certain climate or under certain training programmes that tell them to reach for their gun early and pull their trigger without much provocation

A climate of 'them and us' can be created to maintain a climate of fear in which a police person is likely to be more trigger happy

A clip has been released recently of polcie gunning down a guy in what looks like suicide by cop

The guy steals two bottles of soda and puts them down on the pavement and is ranting angrily. He has a history of mental health problems. Someone calls the cops and when they arrive the guy starts yelling ''shoot me, shoot me already!'' or something to that effect. He pulls out a knife and starts walking towards the 2 cops who pump him full of about 12 rounds

The man is then down on the ground and dying but they roll him over and put handcuffs on him anyway...which is obviously going to prevent him stemming any bleeding so he's basically going to bleed out

They could have shot him in the legs...sure that might still hit the femeral artery but at least they'd be giving him a chance.

The Michael Brown guy wasn't moving towards the cops with a knife but they shot him anyway and there are plenty of clips that show the cops shooting unarmed people for example the homeless guy that was camping out in the foothills. The police went up there and started shouting at him (he also had a history of mental health problems) and they gunned him down when he did nothing menacing to them at all

Shooting someone 6 times inculuding 2 shots to the head shows a clear intent to kill

You've mentioned my 'perception of the world'...well here it is:

Some powerful people have banded together to increase their wealth at the expense of the many. They have driven the economy into the ground leaving many people in poverty and feeling extremely anxious

I don't buy that all mental health problems are a 'disease'; i believe they are caused by anxiety

So this cartel of powerful families has destroyed the economy for many people losing them their homes, their jobs, their partners, their self respect and so on and then those people are sometimes haveing breakdowns of sorts

The system does not then help those people back onto their feet they just drug them upto the eyeballs with synthetic drugs that the cartel make with their pharmaceutical corporations

When these people fall through the cracks of society and turn to crime or lunacy the system then guns them down as if they are mad dogs

It shouldn't be this way
 
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ferguson-no-justice-in-the-american-police-state.html

[h=1]Ferguson: No Justice in the American Police State[/h]Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
Aug 22, 2014

There are reports that American police kill 500 or more Americans every year. Few of these murdered Americans posed a threat to police. https://www.dojmedia.com/u-s-police-have-killed-over-5000-civilians-since-911/ Police murder Americans for totally implausible reasons. For example, a few days before Michael Brown was gunned down in Ferguson, John Crawford picked up a toy gun from a WalMart shelf in the toy department and was shot and killed on the spot by police goons.http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/family-man-killed-cops-walmart-demands-surveillance-video
It appears that the murder of Michael Brown did not satisfy the blood lust of the goon thug cop murderers. Less than four miles from Ferguson, goon thugs murdered another black man on August 19. The police claims of “threat” are disproved by the video of the murder.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html You can see the entire scene much better here. This is a clear case of outright murder of a man by our Nazi Gestapo police. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cell-phone-video-emerges-refutes-st-louis-cops-version-shooting/ The police then handcuff their dead victim.
Clearly, the American police are an enormous danger to the public. It will be interesting to see what excuses the police shills will come up with to justify this murder. It is not American civilians with carry permits who murder 500 people a year. It is the goon thug police. Gun control should be applied to the police who lack sufficient intelligence and judgment to go around armed.
Five hundred is more than one killing by police per day. Yet the reports of the shootings seldom get beyond the local news. Why then has the Ferguson, Missouri, police killing of Michael Brown gone international?
Probably the answer is the large multi-day protests of the black community in Ferguson that led to the state police being sent to Ferguson and now the National Guard. Also, domestic police in full military combat gear with armored personnel carriers and tanks pointing numerous rifles in the faces of unarmed civilians and arresting and threatening journalists make good video copy. The “land of the free” looks like a Gestapo Nazi state. To much of the world, which has grown to hate American bullying, the bullying of Americans by their own police is poetic justice.
For those who have long protested racial profiling and police brutality toward racial minorities, the police murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson is just another in a history of racists murders.http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/20/racial-repression-and-the-murder-of-mike-brown/print Rob Urie is correct that blacks receive disproportionate punishment from the white criminal justice (sic) system. See, for example: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/william-norman-grigg/mother-faces-11-years-in-prison/

Myself, former US Representative Dennis Kucinich, and others see Michael Brown’s murder as reflective of the militarization of the police and police training that creates a hostile police attitude toward the public. The police are taught to view the public as threats against whom the use of violence is the safest course for the police officers.
This doesn’t mean that racism is not also involved. Polls show that a majority of white Americans are content with the police justification for the killing. Police apologists are
flooding the Internet with arguments against those of the opposite persuasion. Only
those who regard the police excuse as unconvincing are accused of jumping to conclusions before the jury’s verdict is in. Those who jump to conclusions favorable to the police are regarded as proper Americans.


What I address in this article is non-evidential considerations that determine a jury’s verdict and the incompetence of Ferguson’s government that caused the riots and looting.
Unless the US Department of Justice makes Michael Brown’s killing a federal case, the black community in Ferguson is powerless to prevent a cover-up.
What usually happens in these cases is that the police concoct a story protective of the police officer(s) and the prosecutor does not bring an indictment. As Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, are partially black (in skin color alone), the black majority community in Ferguson, Missouri, might have hopes from Holder’s visit. However, nothing could be more clear than the fact that Obama and Holder, along with the rest of “black leadership,” have been co-opted by the white power structure. How else would Obama and Holder be in office? Do you think that the white power structure puts in office people who want justice for minorities or for anyone other than the mega-rich?
The 1960s were a time of black leadership, but that leadership was assassinated (Martin Luther King) or co-opted. Black leaders sold out for prestige appointments and corporate board memberships. Today black leadership is marginalized and exists only at local levels if at all.
If the cop who killed Brown is indicted and he is tried in Ferguson, the jury will contain
whites who live in Ferguson. Unless there is a huge change in white sentiment about the killing, no white juror can vote to convict the white cop and continue to live in Ferguson. The hostility of the white community toward white jurors who took the side of a “black hoodlum who stole cigars” against the white police officer would make life for the jurors impossible in Ferguson.
The trouble with purely racial explanations of police using excessive force is that cops don’t limit their excesses to racial minorities. White people suffer them also. Remember the recent case of Cecily McMillan, an Occupy protester who was brutalized by a white goon thug with a record of using excessive force. McMillan is a young white woman. Her breasts were seized from behind, and when she swung around her elbow reflexively and instinctively came up and hit the goon thug. She was arrested for assaulting a police officer and sentenced by a jury to a term in jail. The prosecutor and judge made certain that no evidence could be presented in her defense. Medical evidence of the bruises on her breast and the police officer’s record of police brutality were not allowed as evidence in her show trial, the purpose of which was to intimidate Occupy protesters.
In America white jurors are usually sheep who do whatever the prosecutor wants. As Cecily McMillan, a white woman, could not get justice, it is even less likely that the black family of Michael Brown will. Those who are awaiting a jury’s verdict to decide Michael Brown’s case are awaiting a cover-up and the complicity of the US criminal justice (sic) system in murder.
If there is a federal indictment of the police officer, and the trial is held in a distant jurisdiction, there is a better chance that a jury would consider the facts. But even these precautions would not eliminate the racist element in white jurors’ decisions.
The situation in Ferguson was so badly handled it almost seems like the police state, in responding to the shooting, intended to provoke violence so that the American public could become accustomed to military force being applied to unarmed civilian protests.
Ferguson brings to mind the Boston Marathon Bombing. Two brothers of foreign extraction allegedly set off a “pressure cooker bomb” left in a backback that killed and injured race participants or observers. The two brothers were deemed, without any evidence, to be so dangerous that the entirety of Boston and its suburbs were “locked down” while 10,000 heavily armed police and military patrolled the streets in military vehicles conducting door-to-door searches forcing residents from their homes at gun point, while the police ransacked homes where it was totally obvious the brothers were not hiding. Not a single family evicted from their residences at gunpoint said: “Thank God you are here. The bombers are hiding in our home.”
The excessive display of force and warrantless police home intrusions is the reason that aware and thoughtful Americans do not believe one word of the official account of the Boston Marathon Bombing. Thoughtful people wonder why every American does not see the bombing as an orchestrated state act of terror in order to accustom Americans to the lock-down of a city and police intrusion into their homes. Logistically, it is impossible to assemble 10,000 armed troops so quickly. The obvious indication is that the readiness of the troops indicates pre-planning.
In Ferguson all that was needed to prevent mass protests and looting was for the police chief, mayor or governor to immediately announce that there would be a full investigation by a civic committee independent of the police and that the black community should select the members it wished to serve on the investigative committee.
Instead, the name of the cop who killed Michael Brown was withheld for days, a video allegedly of Michael Brown taking cigars from a store was released as a justification for his murder by police. These responses and a variety of other stupid police and government responses convinced the black community, which already knew in its bones, that there would be a coverup.
It is entirely possible that the police chief, mayor, and governor lacked the intelligence and judgment to deal with the occasion. In other words, perhaps they are too stupid to be in public office. The incapacity of the American public to elect qualified representatives is world-renown. But it is also possible that Michael Brown’s killing provided another opportunity to accustom Americans to the need for military violence to be deployed against the civilian population in order to protect us from threats.
Occupy Wall Street was white, and these whites were overwhelmed by police violence.
This is why I conclude that more is involved in Ferguson than white racist attitudes toward blacks.
The founding fathers warned against allowing US military forces to be deployed against the American people, and the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of military forces against civilians. These restrictions designed to protect liberty have been subverted by the George W. Bush and Obama regimes.
Today Americans have no more protection against state violence than Germans had under National Socialism.
Far from being a “light unto the world,” America is descending into cold hard tyranny.
Who will liberate us?
This from BloombergBusinessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/article...itions-fuel-protest-fury?campaign_id=DN082114
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.
Related posts:

  1. National Guard Ordered Onto Streets of Ferguson, Missouri
  2. Ferguson Resident Justifies Burning Down of Gas Station As “Fighting Back” Against Police
  3. Pentagon fueled Ferguson confrontation
  4. St. Louis County police will no longer be involved in policing Ferguson
  5. Ferguson’s Police Chief Freaked Out After Finding Out His Cops Arrested Two Reporters

This article was posted: Friday, August 22, 2014 at 4:14 am
 
Back
Top