Well because I think there very well may have been a non-lethal way to subdue the suspect.

yes, he was larger, but he was also already wounded and Wilson had mace and a baton available to him at the time of the last shot.

There are thousands of instances in the country every year where cops are attacked by larger men. They dont shoot them all 6 times.

i want cops to be able to defend themselves and use their gun if that's the only way. But i want them to have the training and other options available so that the bar for having to use lethal force is higher than civillians.

^This

Why do you get to make the call of what is the "only way"?
…
You do not get to make the call regarding when and when not to use lethal force. The police officer with years of training does.
…
He has had YEARS of training. He has had years on the street. And if his life is in danger, he is going to take the threat down.
Honestly, when you are the first one through the door, you can make this call.

There are thousands of instances in the country every year where cops are attacked by larger men.

But I think that if we are going to give the police the authority to use that kind of force, then as a society we can, and should, first set the parameters for its use and then review situations where it is applied--and have consequences if those parameters are exceeded.

Yeah, you're right, I wasn't there and I don’t know for this particular case. And that's one of the reasons I've been trying to shift from the particulars of this situation to the overall big picture issues. But, just as a member of society, I do get to voice my opinion on what standard I want from the people we appoint to uphold the law and grant the ability to use force. And I don’t think I should be silent if I see a potential issue.



You seem to be making this very personal as though I think the cops have to answer to me individually. I’m not saying that. I’m saying they have to answer to society at large, and I’m giving my opinion as part of that society. You also seem to be saying, hey my husband is a great guy, just let him do his job. And he probably is a great guy and great cop, but I am not talking about him individually.

Yes, of course, in the heat of the moment he gets to make that call. But I think that if we are going to give the police the authority to use that kind of force, then as a society we can, and should, first set the parameters for its use and then review situations where it is applied--and have consequences if those parameters are exceeded.

If you disagree with me that the Ferguson incident was justifiable AND necessary, OK. I’m looking at the situation and saying that it looks similar to stuff that happens all the time across the country that the vast majority of those end in non-lethal ways. But I’m more than willing to admit I don’t know the particulars and don’t have the experience or resources to know with any kind of certainty. There could very well be all kinds of reasons why this incident was different than the rest. But it seems like you’re implying it shouldn’t be questioned at all. Or that anyone who isn’t a cop should not have any opinions on what authority they should have.

Yeah, you're right, I wasn't there and I don’t know for this particular case. And that's one of the reasons I've been trying to shift from the particulars of this situation to the overall big picture issues. But, just as a member of society, I do get to voice my opinion on what standard I want from the people we appoint to uphold the law and grant the ability to use force. And I don’t think I should be silent if I see a potential issue. Actually, you only get to truly voice your opinion through voting for a police chief and other government officials who control the standards for police hires.



You seem to be making this very personal as though I think the cops have to answer to me individually. I’m not saying that. I’m saying they have to answer to society at large, and I’m giving my opinion as part of that society. Police don't work for society any more than a postman works for society. You also seem to be saying, hey my husband is a great guy, just let him do his job. And he probably is a great guy and great cop, but I am not talking about him individually.

Yes, of course, in the heat of the moment he gets to make that call. But I think that if we are going to give the police the authority to use that kind of force, then as a society we can, and should, first set the parameters for its use and then review situations where it is applied--and have consequences if those parameters are exceeded. Again, they don't work for society AND, as QCL pointed out, the parameters are set...in the stone of state laws.

If you disagree with me that the Ferguson incident was justifiable AND necessary, OK. I’m looking at the situation and saying that it looks similar to stuff that happens all the time across the country that the vast majority of those end in non-lethal ways. And here is the crux of the matter. The vast majority DO end in non-lethal ways. Why is it that when one incident doesn't, no one assumes that the bad guy deserved it, rather than the cop over-reacted? But I’m more than willing to admit I don’t know the particulars and don’t have the experience or resources to know with any kind of certainty. There could very well be all kinds of reasons why this incident was different than the rest. But it seems like you’re implying it shouldn’t be questioned at all. Or that anyone who isn’t a cop should not have any opinions on what authority they should have.

do you have a cite for this or are you making generalizations or assumptions.

I'm curious if you know how many people were killed by police last year in the United States, and how many were black men?

You seem to be saying that parameters for use of force are not already dictated by statute.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilc...;SeqEnd=9300000

Please see the criminal code for your state for specifics.

Please also see the following:

http://www.mtu15.com/PEACE%20OFFICERS%20USE%20OF%20FORCE%20IN%20ILLINOIS.pdf

And this:
http://www.ptb.state.il.us/pdf/uof.pdf

And this:
http://lmscnt.ileas.isp.state.il.us/production/cninv000000000003071/content.pdf

And this:
https://www.iletsbei.com/docs/publications/PURGUIDE.pdf

I believe there are already laws on the books pertaining to the parameters for when deadly force is justified. I can think of a couple of cases in the past few years where police used deadly force when it was not warranted and those police have either pled before trial or gone to trial and some were convicted (and i'm sure if i did a google search i could find many others).

as far as consequences in Ferguson, is the grand jury that was convened not consequences for his action, and he was absolved? or do you mean some other consequences.

So the question is, what kind of accountability do you want for the cops? The same standard as everyone else? Higher, since they are authority figures and have training? Lower, since they are called in to confront these dangerous situations and don't exactly have the option to walk away?

yes, for that specific case. I'm saying we should review our overall approach to the use of police force. take some time to reconsider what exact authority we want to grant. And I haven't even advocated specific changes--from the start I've said I'm not even sure what direction we should go:

And again I'll repeat, the only way the public gets to review or reconsider is through the process of election. Riots, protests, etc., do nothing productive.

we (as a society) should get to review that call afterwards and if it was erroneous (or worse) and impose consequences to try and prevent it from happening in the future.