AverageJoesGym

7-DuPont Manual 5-Shelby County 3-Simon Kenton 2-Ensworth, TN 1-Jackson County Tiebreaker-Simon Kenton

7-Southwestern 5-Pulaski County 3-Leslie County 2-Ashland 1-Prestonsburg TB-Pulaski County

Garrard County Boyle County Glasgow Lexington Catholic Covington Catholic Middlesboro

So did you guys not watch the video or did I mishear the shots that occurred when the suspect was rolling down the hill?

The one thing that is bothering me about everyone accepting the officer's friend's accounts of what happened: In that account both Dorain Johnson and Michael Brown struggled with the officer with Johnson trying to get his gun. Why wasn't Johnson charged? If that's what happened why was he not charged?

From what I understand they had received quite a bit more punishment than just a suspension from games and they had complied with all of it.

In the video of the guy that went after the officers with the knife it appeared that the officers continued to shoot after he was on the ground as well. There was a very distinct pause between the first volley of shots and the final 2. I don't question the use of force in that case but I can see where it could be an issue. I don't think it works have mattered as it appeared that he had already been shot enough that he wasn't going to survive but it didn't appear that the officers let up as he was going down or when he was on the ground.

The suspension has been reduced to the scrimmage and one quarter of the first game.

Although I'm sure that the first several shots would have been fatal, and from what I've seen the officers were completely in shooting the suspect, didn't it seem like they kept shooting well after he was on the ground. I know they are trained to shoot to stop the threat but it looked like he already down. Adrenaline?

Wasn't making a comment either way. You also made a point to say that they had one in 2008 and wondered if they still did. I was just verifying that they still do.

From what I could see the shooting looked to be completely justified. It did seem like the officers shot him at least twice after he was well on the ground though. I don't think if would have mattered as he had taken at least 3-4 shots already but it seemed like they kept shooting after he was down.

From the Richland County Sheriff's Department Website: RCSD Tactical Team

I understand them shooting him whether the knife was raised or not. The only question that I have is why the one officer continued to shoot after he was on the ground? You can clearly hear two of the shots happen well after the guy was on the ground.

Why is that not considered terroristic threatening?

S.C. Sheriff's Department Armored Vehicle with Belt-Fed Machine Gun - News - POLICE Magazine http://www.examiner.com/article/columbia-sc-pd-gets-un-blue-armored-vehicle

They were on life support 2 weeks ago. They're dead now.

The story that I read regarding the autopsy only shows a wound to the eye area and one to the top of the head. I don't think anyone's idea of the forehead extends to the top of the head.

But the lady that was giving Wilson's account says that the shot in the forehead/eye was the last shot.

That also says that the final shot was the one to the forehead so he'd have had to have shot him in the top of the head earlier if her account is to be believed. If that's the case he couldn't have been falling when shot in the top of the head.

Incredible timing, especially after a previous headshot.

I've been more upset with the handling of the press/protesters afterwards than I have been about the shooting. I simply didn't trust his friend's testimony from the get go. However, if the officer turns out to be that small it is going to make that shot to the top of the head that went down to his collarbone a little hard to explain. Charging or not a 6'4" guy would have to be almost on the ground to be shot at that angle from someone of average/less than average height.

Did you read the report? This wasn't a couple of raids. It was taken from over 800 uses of SWAT over a 2+ year period. It also detailed how in many of these cases SWAT was used to serve warrants to prevent the destruction of evidence--not because they expected an armed confrontation. That is born out by the fact that firearms were found on the premises in only 35% of all the cases studied. That is a lower rate than gun ownership in general. Before you tell me I no clue what I'm taking about or of hands perhaps you should actually read the article cited to begin the thread and address the facts and figures in it.

Here's the point I was trying to make with firearms being found in only 35% of the SWAT raids in the report. SWAT was developed for use in situations like a barricaded suspect, hostage situation, active shooter etc. They weren't meant to serve warrants. Due to some drug dealers being very well armed I can understand SWAT being used to serve warrants in situations where the police believe there is high risk to the serving officers. I don't have any objection to that. I don't have any objection to SWAT having specialized weapons or tools to do so. I do have a problem if they are being used simply to serve warrants to prevent a drug dealer from flushing evidence. When heavily armed men break down doors and rush in unannounced there is too great a risk that someone's nerves (police or suspect) gets the best of them and someone gets hurt. Especially children or innocent people that might be in the house but not be suspects. I feel the fact that firearms were found (and the key word is found, not used by or attempted to be used by the suspects) at a lower rate than the firearm ownership rate of the general public shows that either the police have extremely poor intel or they are trying to prevent the destruction of evidence. I tend to think it is the latter more often than not. I have an even bigger objection when the judge that signs the warrant is not informed that it will be served as a no knock warrant. If presented with that information the warrant might not have been signed in the first place. For example, if you go to a judge and ask for a warrant to search a house because a suspect sold to a CI you'll probably get a warrant. Now if you go to the judge and ask for that same warrant as a no knock warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence there's going to be a lot more question concerning other people in the house etc. I feel like the judges deserve to be presented with that evidence or at least the reason for deciding to bust the door down vs knocking. I feel by using SWAT in the way they are being used in a lot of cases that a lot of people, police, suspects and bystanders are being put at risk needlessly.

Very much so. I don't trust either Brown's friends account of the incident nor the officer's significant others account. I am reserving judgment until more facts are in on the shooting. I've been appalled at the way the protests and the media were handled--up until the State Police took over.

Here's another video of the incident. It sure doesn't look to me like they were "helping" the journalists. It looks like they were targeting the journalists--there's no protestors anywhere in the area that I can see. I'm calling the police blatant liars in this case. [video=youtube_share;oqtiGhpNH9Y]http://youtu.be/oqtiGhpNH9Y