Had seen this article earlier today. I completely agree with Rand Paul about the over-militarization of the police force.

I do not agree with his one statement below, however.
If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off.

Perhaps it would be me, but I do not (did not!) ever backtalk the police. Even when I was confronted, it was yes, sir/no sir and complete compliance.

[Sidebar]
And I was never shot or even roughed up...

An almost all -white police force in a community that is mostly black. A powderkeg waiting to happen. 20 years ago a good part of LAPD was white and living in Simi Valley or similar places a substantial commute from Los Angeles. Police officers need to be part of the community they police.

Good piece.

Rand Paul is a very interesting politician. I've said it before, but I think he has an excellent chance of beating Hillary of he can somehow manage to get the nomination. He seems to have genuine convictions and many of them cut across normal party lines and confound expectations.

As regards the police, I'm always very cynical when I read their justifications for killing somebody. Amazing how often it proves to be a pack of lies.

Since Paul wrote this, it seems the police in Ferguson have been exceeding their authority as regards the press.

bbauska wrote:Perhaps it would be me, but I do not (did not!) ever backtalk the police. Even when I was confronted, it was yes, sir/no sir and complete compliance.

Maybe so, but as what level of less than full compliance would you expect lethal force to be justifiable?

And to what extent have police got a resppnsibility to earn the trust and compliance of citizens, or should it be automatic?

[just seen that the additional part I wrote below cross-posted with bbauska's reply]

To be honest, though my main thoughts are less about whether Brown was shot and killed legally or justifiably or whatever. What is of wider concern is the change in the way that some police forces are equipped and set their tactics.

It seems that changing the police force in Ferguson has calmed the situation fown greatly. Partly I would guess because the protests were against the actions of an officer, but it appears also in large part due to a different approach.

Rioting, and in particular looting, are not justifiable. But heavy handed responses strike me as being counter-productive.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Perhaps it would be me, but I do not (did not!) ever backtalk the police. Even when I was confronted, it was yes, sir/no sir and complete compliance.

Maybe so, but as what level of less than full compliance would you expect lethal force to be justifiable?

And to what extent have police got a resppnsibility to earn the trust ans compliance of.citizens, or should it be automatic?

Lethal force would be justified if the police officer met the criteria set forth by the force's standards. I have enclosed the link for deadly force standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

Non-compliance is is not a factor in the use of deadly force. I am saying that full compliance seldom leads to being shot. BTW, just because the man who was shot just robbed a store (allegedly still), does not permit the officer to use deadly force.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

It depends on state law, Brad. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Tennessee v. Garner that it was a violation of the 4th Amendment for the police to "seize" a person by shooting them when the person was an non-violent felon. The standard is as follows: " Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape , and if, where
feasible, some warning has been given." State law is free to determine when lethal force may be used by a police officer as long as it does not violate the Constitutional standard. I am not sure what the standard is for Missouri.

But even if the standard tracked the U.S. Constitution, and the victim was involved in the robbery (if he was involved--what happened to the cigars?), it seems very doubtful under the U.S constitutional standard (state law could be even stricter) that he could be shot if he were unarmed and not posing an immediate threat. For one thing, the alleged robbery was accomplished by some force but not with a weapon or causing serious bodily injury. A police officer could probably shoot someone who just robbed a bank with a gun and was fleeing and would not respond to officer warnings--but that does not similar to the circumstances here.

Agreed on all. I said it would be set forth in the force's standards.

Agreed that the robbery is not cause to shoot. It does go against a narrative we have been hearing about the man who was shot.

Should different States and different police forces have different standards?

danivon wrote:http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

For some reason the US (generally) gives cops and firefighters carte blanche, while teachers and other public servants are demonized. Whatever cops and firefighters want, they tend to get: good pay, fantastic benefits, gold plated pension, etc.

I have never understood this division between classes of public servants in the eyes of the public. Perhaps this sense of privilege or entitlement creeps into how police forces perform their duties. If you believe you are a part of a special class, doesn't that mean that everyone else is less important? I dunno, but I expect that this is merely a symptom of a deep cultural problem.

Do you feel the police officer is being demonized without evidence?

Do you feel the man who was shot is being demonized based upon the video showing his "strong-arm robbery"?

Freeman, I wonder if being givem access to a load of surplus military hardware gives police officers an imflated sense of empowerment?

Bbauska - it is debateable whether Brown did rob the shop (the video is not great quality) and even if he di it has no bearing on the fatal incident later on.

On the other hand, it is not debateable that he was shot and killed by a cop. Why that happened and whether it was justifiable or not is an issue.

But even then, did the local police over-react to deal with protests, escalating tather than calming the situation? Local people seem to be more effective at dissuading looters than cops playong soldiers.

Agreed, Brown is not convicted. It certainly did not look like it was a normal monetary transaction to me.

Wilson did certainly shoot Brown. Agreed. The police force does not handle PR well. I am all for an investigation. If Wilson is found to have improperly use his weapon and illegally killed Brown, I am all for Wilson being tried and executed if found guilty.

My main problem is how this issue is being blown out of proportion w/o the investigation (by both sides).

Does anyone have a problem with the looters being tried and punished to the fullest extent of the law if found guilty?