I think police officer Wilson wanted Michael Brown dead so he could not talk about

[Lint Head]

"why" he was shot. I've was taught that when you aim and squeeze the trigger you never shoot to wound. Other than in movies, I'm sure a police officer is taught the same. There are three rules that govern when a police officer should shoot. Perceiving a threat. Threat made and the means to carry out that threat with the fear of immediate bodily harm.

Michael Brown was an unarmed teenager without the means. Micheal brown was the one threatened by officer Wilson and feared for his life. All because he was walking in the street.

"That" is why people are pissed and don't feel there is a way out of this other than protesting. They feel impotent to the decades of oppression by the very authority that is supposed to protect them.

[samsingh]

1. you may be right

[SomethingFishy]

2. Speculation.. however

you are right about the protesters. They have had enough.. Check out my OP on the 24,000 arrest warrants issued in Ferguson in 2013, in a town of 21,000 people.

[Lint Head]

4. "I think" is defined as "speculation".

[napi21]

3. I disagree with you that the police are taught to "shoot to kill".

I'm not a cop but several relatives and froends of mine are. I asked them about that and all said they are taucht to incapacitate the offender, but NOT kill them unless a life is threatened, either the officer's or someone elses.

My guess on the Brown shooting is that the officer operated in panic mode and shot multiple times without thinking of the potential consequences.

[bettyellen]

6. or he was angry and lost his shit.

[HooptieWagon]

11. +1

Brown didn't move to the sidewalk. Wilson thought Brown mouthed off. Wilson decided to teach Brown a lesson, and his rage got out of control. FPD is covering up for him, and trying to paint the shooting as justified. Hmmm... has anyone thought to require a drug test of Wilson? 'roid user, perhaps?

[zipplewrath]

7. Then why shoot?

If the officers, or some other person's life isn't in danger, then why are they shooting at all? Especially an unarmed suspect? I think you might want to have the conversation again because something isn't making sense.

[Lint Head]

8. Incapacitate does not mean 'shoot with a gun'. Guns are not intended as "wounding devices".

The is rarely, if ever, a reason to point a gun at someone, pull the trigger, with the intent to wound. I have several people in my group of friends and family who are U.S. Marshall's, policemen, deputies, etc. To a man and woman they all agree.
Rubber bullets, mace, pepper spray and batons are wounding weapons meant to incapacitate. Be it human or animal, guns are meant to kill.

[janlyn]

5. WOW, that pic of the press

running after being hit with teargas, chills me to the bone!!
I think that speaks volumes as to why the law enforcment felt that they could get away with doing it,and then thinking they could control the narrative!!

[951-Riverside]

9. This is standard for Police

Its cheaper to just kill someone over paying for his or her medical bills. This is why police officers are penalized and even fired when they shoot to wound over shoot to kill.

Most police officers in America belong to a fraternity either through a fraternal order or through a police union and they plan, plot and discuss on how to effectively kill and set up people all day long. Its a death cult.

[Lint Head]

10. If this is true it would be very depressing. But I do know personally of conversations like this

taking place. Even politicians. I wouldn't think is would be a standard.

[HooptieWagon]

12. Killing the suspect eliminates them from testifying or filing a civil suit. nt