Police Officer Shot In Ferguson
 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...d9dc40afe.html

I read this article twice to see if I could find a description of the shooter, who is still at large. Its not unusual in a situation like this for the newspaper to offer some description of the alleged perp, so that 1) the public can be advised that someone armed and potentially dangerous is on the loose, and 2) possibly get the public's help in finding the alleged perp.

Hmmm..... I wonder why there is no description of the alleged perp in this article?

One wonders why the officers are such lousy shots, we see the same thing around here, most could not hit the side of a barn if they were inside with the doors shut.

Curious post. I wonder if, as in this case, how much accuracy you'd expect from an officer after he'd just been shot in the arm?

Not much.

One of the drills I have undertaken is designed to simulate such injury. In this instance, we were hit with a tazer in an extremity and compelled to draw, aim, and hit three times an 8x11 sheet of paper at six feet as quickly as possible.

Nobody was accurate.

The idea was just to prove to your mind/body that you could function when "something didn't work."

Massad Ayoob is a crazy guy... :D

Yes, and the race of the suspect as well as the cop, I would think, would be central to any shooting incident in Ferguson.
It certainly seemed to be the central theme surrounding the last shooting.

My son and pretty much everyone else on his ODA would have put all three rounds in a the center.

There were two officers according to the article. Was the second one asleep in the squad car? If I had someone watching my back I would like someone who can use a pistol. And yes I can use one just ask any of the white tailed lawn rats here how a 6mm pellet in the arse feels.:)

No, they wouldn't have.

I call physiological bullshit.

When your body doesn't work, it doesn't work.

What is bullshit is you trying to compare you and your cop buddies with a Special Forces ODA.

That's like trying to compare a Tee-Ball team of six year olds with the New York Yankees.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...shot/16381553/

Sounds like the Dude in Pete's avatar.

Uh, I thought that after your partner gets shot, the first order of business is to make sure he/she is OK?

A Yankee still can't swing a bat if his body doesn't work. :rolleyes:

And, again, you appease to your son for validation. I'm going to surmise this implies you realize you possess none on your own?

That would be growth.

One lame excuse after another, you guys are pathetic. After your partner is shot it would be best if you immobilized the shooter don't you think? Or do you think?:)

He was shot in the arm but still capable of communication I would imagine.

Well, if you and I ever decide to be a police officers, remind me to never volunteer to be your partner. Procedure, as I understand it, would be to make sure I'm not laying on the street bleeding out before you took on foot off after the perps. You'd at least take the time to call in a report that I'd been shot.

Even lamer...:rolleyes:

I guess. Unless you're the one whose been shot. :rolleyes:

What makes sense depends on the exact tactical situation. One rule cannot fit all cases. Both dealing with life-threatening wound-effects, and making sure no one takes any more hits, are going to be real high on the to-do list.

Still trying those lame 'strawman' arguments I see Mike. :rolleyes:

And get yourself shot doing it?

I'm not the one who decided to debate the point. But if you're suggesting that Merrylander is making a strawman argument, I completely agree.

The fact still remains that the question I posed in the OP still remains unanswered, but I'm not surprised by that.

You're offering an alternative scenario. The police reported that the perps fired shots and then fled. They didn't stick around and continue to fire on the cops. If the latter had been the scenario, then the first order of business would have been to return fire.

But this takes us off topic. Care to try to respond to the question in the OP?

It's the St. Louis Post Dispatch Mike. :rolleyes: Sheesh, I had to answer some dip shitty off topic question from the website just to read the whole article.

Every other news source gave the race of the suspect/s.

A better question is, 'why the concern on your part' or why has is put a bug up your tucas?

To be fair, here's a bug for me from that article.

"Police also confirmed today that the wounded officer had a body camera, but that it was turned off during the incident.
St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman, a police spokesman, said he did not know why the camera was off."SL Post Dispatch

It wasn't in the original dispatch article I posted, which was the first that moved after the incident. Yet the first article that moved after the Ferguson shooting wasted no time in identifying the race of the officer and the victim. Just seems curious to me.

Regarding the camera, sounds like mere human error:

"About three weeks ago, Ferguson police officers began using body cameras that were donated after controversy and riots followed another officer’s fatal shooting of an unarmed teenager. Officer Darren Wilson, who killed Michael Brown, is on leave from the department and under grand jury investigation.

Typical of such units, the camera monitors constantly but saves video only after the button is pushed. The images it stores begin 30 seconds before the activation and continue until it’s turned off.

The department policy states that officers and detectives are to activate their cameras “to record contacts with the general public.”

“This was a building check,” Eickhoff said. “These camera batteries are only good for three to four hours, so it’s not like they are running constantly.

“It takes time to do this. Things like using your walkie-talkie are instinctual,” he said, while the camera use “is all brand new.”

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...8162629a2.html

'Seems curious' is just innuendo. Are you ashamed of your point, that you won't actually make it?

Do you have a question, and can't figure out how to ask it? Seems curious makes the point just fine.

Whatever you say brown eyes.:)

Bull. "It's curious," as used here, is innuendo. It's a way of saying 'Hmm...there's something wrong here,' without having to say what you think is srong, let alone showing that it actually is wrong.

A niod and a wink don't cut it. Make your point or shut up.

Of course. I took this as a rhetorical question.

So let's see. Ferguson has been simmering for a couple of months and it is race related. So now allegedly a couple of perps shoot and wound an officer and run. And you want to make a BFD of the race of the shooters that one media outlet did not report.

My answer ? Probably the Missouri KKK doing a stealth attack to discredit the black population and help start another riot. ;)

It's obvious media bias. Most accounts I read the first day, and I read several, didn't mention the race of the officer or the perps in this incident, yet later in each article they did include a blurb about the Michael Brown incident in which they DO, again, explicitly state the race of both the officer and the perp in THAT incident.
Someone pointed out a USA Today article that did identify the race of the perps, but I've still not seen anything identifying the race of the officer.
If this story is important due to the outrage of the Michael Brown incident, then the races of those involved is also important. And that, IMO is exactly why it's not being reported. It doesn't fit the agenda of a one-sided media campaign.

Lordy, now it's a vast left wing media conspiracy? :rolleyes:

Ah, there you go again in your self - appointed role as forum content cop. Thanks for the laugh. :rolleyes:

Not necessarily. I think its more of a "reap what you sew." The current approach of many media outlets is to search out stories that might fit - or forced-fit - into templates. Some templates, I suspect, are known to generate increased viewership because they touch on folks hot-buttons.

However, when one of those topics is race - as it is sometimes portrayed in the media whether legit or not - and it continues to be mined by the media for its ratings value, it has a corrosive effect society, and artificially gins up racial animus and polarization.

Reap what you sew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCEN-NzoYSY

Considering that so much of the media today is concentrated in so few hands, e.g., Rupert Murdoch if there is a vast conspiracy it sure is not on the left.

Maybe he thought reap what you sow only referred to pig breeders.

As if each and every poster doesn't have every right to call you on your stupid debate tricks, at will. That's freedom, isn't it?