Still gonna opt for that 'stun gun' ?
A good thug is a dead thug.
Officer Wilson is not a dainty little flower. He is a large and presumably powerful man, though admittedly not as large as Brown. It should be noted that much of Brown's weight advantage was pretty obviously fat, not entirely a help in a fight.
Wilson was presumably carrying a Taser and a nightstick or something resembling one.
At the time of the shooting both men were in the middle of the street, with Brown charging Wilson.
And there was nothing at all Wilson could do except shoot Brown?
Would a Taser have stopped him? Could a nightstick have made up the difference in weight sufficiently for Brown to be taken down? If Wilson had not shot Brown, would he have gotten hold of the officer's gun and used it on him?
We'll never know the answer to any of those questions, because Wilson made the choice to use lethal force before Brown could reach him.
I'm not going to sit here and decide it was the wrong choice, because I wasn't there. But I am going to object to claims that Wilson had no choice, because they are objectively inaccurate. He had a number of choices. The choice he made was to use lethal force rather than engage in additional physical combat with Brown.
BTW, the article was interesting in that it implies agreement with Brown being a thug, but claims that this doesn't matter. This varies from other articles I've seen in which Thug status is vehemently denied.
This entire story warrants zero attention on a national level.
The entire media warrants zero attention at any level. Except for Sharyl Attkisson and others like her.
I thought Wilson had no taser because the department couldn’t afford them for all cops; that was my understanding.
Once Michael Brown was close enough to be halfway in the car, Wilson has to use deadly force to protect his gun.
“Would a Taser have stopped him? Could a nightstick have made up the difference in weight sufficiently for Brown to be taken down?”
And if those didn’t work?
I’ve been on the receiving end of a stun gun. Shrugged it off and fired 17 rounds into a target.
I’ve studied stick fighting. One right move and now the heavier Brown has a sick to beat Wilson to death with.
Brown already showed intent to kill Wilson. Having failed, having Wilson fend him off once already (suffering debilitating harm in the process), Brown was coming back to inflict more grievous harm.
At what point, in your obviously ill informed view, would transition to deadly force be justified AND practical (and not too late)?
Officer Wilson had no Taser with him.
When the thug attacked him in his car, his nightstick was at his back, and he'd have had to use the hand with which he was struggling with the thug to get at it. As well, in quarters that close, I'm not sure the nightstick would have been effective.
In any case, the thug had already reached for the weapon, evidence of which is when the officer fired the first shot at Brown, the thug actually got powder on his hands from the discharge. The grand jury report indicated that the thug's hands were no more than a few inches from the barrel of the gun.
Once outside, the thug insisted on coming at the officer, even after he was already shot. By this point, the thug had already bashed the officer upside the head a couple of times, had already tried to take his gun, was already known to be a dangerous aggressor, no longer deserving of any benefit of the doubt.
This isn't a case where a cop was so risk-averse that he wound up killing an innocent person who had perhaps made some sort of ambiguous movement, or possibly not even that.
This was a case of defending against someone who had already inflicted physical harm on the officer, and had shown the capacity to further harm, or even kill the officer, should they come to blows again.
The exclamation mark on all this is that the thug kept moving toward the officer even after being shot and wounded, refusing to surrender. The absolute last place the officer wanted to be - or was morally required to be - was within the reach of the thug for another physical altercation.
“But I am going to object to claims that Wilson had no choice, because they are objectively inaccurate.”
Certainly. He could have sacrificed his life for the thug's life. He could have had another fight with the thug, endangering his own life, long after it had been established that the thug was bent on killing him.
But the only reasonable choice was to keep shooting until the thug ceased advancing on him.
Cops shouldn't be so ready to shoot possibly-innocent folks in ambiguous circumstances. The "well, at least the cop got home safely" attitude is terrible. But cops aren't required to commit possible suicide against known perps who have already engaged them violently.
sitetest
In what possible moral system is this wrong? No one is obligated to risk serious bodily harm from an attacker if they can stop it.
Attack someone, and be prepared to accept whatever consequences ensue, including your own imminent demise.
Was it Heinlein that said, "An armed society is a polite society"?
Actually, the first shots were fired INSIDE the patrol car, when Brown hit Wilson multiple times & attempted to take Wilson's gun. It fired twice during the struggle.
Clearly, this was a life or death struggle initiated solely by Brown. Brown turned a minor confrontation with police into a deadly assault.
As for the street shooting, Wilson repeatedly told Brown to stop as Brown charged him with his head down like a football player. Multiple witnesses attest to this. Brown freely chose to continue his attack.
Wilson had every reason to believe that after one deadly attack by Brown only seconds before, the second attack would be just as deadly. He had legal and moral right to shoot Brown in self defense just as any person would, & under the rapid & extreme circumstances, Wilson had no obligation to temper his use of force.
Any soldier who has been in combat will tell you he was afraid, or he is lying or crazy. There is no doubt Wilson had right to fear for his life from a lunatic who apparently attacked him twice for merely telling him to get out of the road. No one can be expected to use the minimal amount of force under such circumstances. It would be foolish & potentially deadly to try to put away his gun & try to use the taser. It might not work. You might fumble with it & not have a chance to fire before Brown tackles you.
I don't think the victim of violence has any responsibility for the safety of the attacker. A victim has every right to use any & all force necessary to stop the attacker, for the victim has no idea of the intentions, capabilities, or weapons the attacker has. The attacker forfeits his human rights the moment he attacks - he is reduced to the status of rabid dog.
Still gonna opt for that 'stun gun' ?
A good thug is a dead thug.