I would call it an "itchy trigger finger". Wouldn't be racism unless these acts were the same cop or department or even precinct. Then there would be a pattern.

Life and death situations are unique and details define causation. You cant lump them all into a broad category and actually expect it to have meaning.

Wish I had a bit more time to give a full opinion on this. The shortened version of an answer to the OP the that schools are holding down those that are succeeding to allow those that are struggling to catch up.

The compliance of which I speak, is during the arrest. To answer your question compliance would involve ceasing the attack and surrendering. In Brown's case he would be compliant by stopping and turning around, but the moment he started running at the cop, he became a threat once again.

It seems there was evidence of a point blank hand wound received by Brown in the officer's car, along with gun powder residue and blood, all collaborating the officer's story. Would find it hard to explain what Brown's left hand was doing inside the police car on the opposite the window near where the officer's gun would be.

Also, not sure why Brown never put his hands in the air to show he was surrendering. IF he were, in fact, surrendering.

Makes more sense to me the Brown, who had a history of violent, aggressive behavior, would turn and charge the cop out of anger, than a scenario in which ran, almost got away, then turned to surrender without putting his hands in the air.

I would love to hear the justification for this officer's actions.

The story does sound as though this cop had an itchy trigger finger. Reminds me of a story where a cop asked for an ID and shot a man for reaching into his pocket. Or the shooting of another individual for reaching into his glove box for registration/insurance.

I have to ask... Were people running away from this boy as though he were a danger? What was his facial expression? There are environmental influences here that should help one measure the level of potential threat. The likelihood of someone so young, from a city nonetheless, being able to shoot with proficiency is minuscule.

Personally I would have a hard time labeling someone so young an imminent "threat". Even at the risk of my own life I would like to think I would hesitate, remembering my childhood and playing "guns" with my friends in my parents' back yard. To a certain degree a police officer must accept some form of risk, when putting on a badge.

Several issues here. Evidence of struggle over officer's gun from gunshot residue an point-blank injury on Brown's hand. Officer also had injury to collaborate the story.

Also, If Brown ran over a hundred yards away he was out of effective, lethal range for officer's pistol (ballistics would reflect this). This means that Brown (or the officer) must have closed the distance somehow, or that officer is a ridiculously good shot to strike that many hits. If the officer closed the distance, his running should also have effected his aim, even after stopping. Generally speaking, police officers aren't allowed to use overpowered ammo.

Maximum effective range for most 9mm pistols on a point-target (which is a single person) is 50 meters. You can hit targets farther out, but ballistics drops dramatically. Note: this is assuming officer was carrying the standard issue police caliber pistol.

Agree with all examples (for the most part).

But I can't even BEGIN to comprehend how Brown is a victim here...

You twist words here. No, "touching" an officer's gun is not grounds for death. However, attacking an officer, and during the attack reaching for, and/or grabbing said weapon, displays intent to kill. THAT is grounds for death.

As a civilian, if I were attacked I would assume my life were threatened, warranting deadly force. If that person went for my gun I would find it only responsible to use deadly force as this person could use my gun against others after killing me. If this person were to run away, the threat would be diminished, but the second he turned around and started running at me again, the threat of being killed comes back full force and I would not hesitate to put that threat down. This is escalation of force. If good people do not use this, evil people will inherit the world.

Escalation of force is based on threat levels. When police apprehend a criminal that is armed and considered dangerous, the criminal is compliant. Once the criminal pulls his/her weapons and/or becomes threatening, he/she becomes a physical threat and is killed.

What you describe for this incident is not the desire for "responsible levels of fear" but the desire for prohibiting police from using deadly force to protect themselves or others.

As I mentioned earlier, I can describe recent accounts in which police have blatantly overreacted, and those officers need to be held accountable. When a cooperative man gets shot for reaching into his pocket or glove box when asked to provide identification for example, or when a child is seen with a toy (I will not get into reasons). There is a certain degree of danger to one's life a police officer must accept when putting on a uniform. But we cannot expect them, or anyone, to allow themselves to be beaten to death any time someone tries to do so.

I'm pretty sure that "black man" in question was proven to have "hurt" several people including the cop in question (DURING THE ENCOUNTER).

There are some cases in which officers blatantly overreact and should b brought to justice. Training in escalation of force should be made abundant.

While the last verse of your comment is very true, the first reflects an astounding lack of tactical knowledge and real life experience in these situations. The most evil of criminals would walk all over anyone with this mindset.

...Or, perhaps a white police officer who was trying to defend himself will be crucified just because his assailant was black...

Is racism diminishing, or being reignited under the guise of "justice"?

While I am not psychic, I would say the biggest threat to this man and his family would come from terrorist organizations retaliating. His brethren, while annoyed, would generally pose no threat of violence. These men, typically, are more loyal to each other than they are the U.S. Government. There are always exceptions to the rule though. But brass often gets irritated with the fact that these guys don't blindly follow orders.

I can't help but see irony in an administration getting upset with a man for talking about the same raid they, themselves, televised in detail.

Did this former SEAL even mention why he came forward? Just seems a bit odd to me that so many are speaking out like this. Perhaps a way to claim fame?

To answer your question, he can talk about this because it was a high profile Op. If it were a "black op" we wouldn't hear anything about Bin Laden being killed, and there wouldn't be books published about the raid. There was no classified information given.

Generally speaking, you have Delta force head the mission if you want to keep it quiet, and DEVGRU head the mission if you don't. May seem silly but Delta doesn't "officially exist" even though everyone knows it's there. The two units support each other, however, on most missions they undertake, and they are both quite interchangeable when it comes to their operators. Seldom will brass just send one unit anymore. Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, all have spec ops units that often support each other (despite all their trash talking).

Now in response to the OP...

You never expect to survive missions you are sent on. Especially one as high profile as this. This was just as true under the Bush administration as it was under Obama. Heck, part of the adjustment from coming home after fighting is accepting that you survived. "You have to be ready to die in order to focus on the mission at hand."

If I understand correctly their orders were to go into Pakistan with no backing from air support and no large-scale QRF. (This was to delay Pakistan from sending their army in response to what they could view as an invasion.) They had to take out a high profile target that had been on the run for a decade, so there was reason to believe in a heavy resistance. They were also on a time-frame as the Pakistani military would respond at some point, which would have made the fight impossible, which leaves little "wiggle room" for unknowns.

The only place a politician should have on the battlefield is in the declaration of war.

But please note: "Should" and "do" are two very different concepts.

Problem is, politicians tie the hands of soldiers on the ground for popularity purposes. I will bring an example during vietnam. I had a cousin who was force recon during the war. Took one of those infamous "hills" we keep hearing about. But in order to be diplomatic politicians ordered the retreat to comply with "peace talks", which everyone knew after the first, that the VC and NVA merely used as a method to advance positions unhindered. Cousin was killed retaking the same hill for the 3rd time.

Another example can be given of ROE during operation Iraqi freedom; We were, for a period of time, ordered to NOT RETURN FIRE if being fired upon from a mosque. This was because politicians didn't want to anger the population. Again, population didn't care, and enemies used this to their advantage.

Also, i would like to add that i mentioned the ones giving the "ok" are due SOME credit. They just seem to get most of it. It took no skill and little courage, merely the ability to speak and desire to look good politically to give the green light on the Bin Laden raid. Glad he did though. Especially at the risk of angering Pakistan.

Again, I realize I am a bit off topic here, just off on a rant. My apologies.

You are correct as well.

Here's what I was talking about though; Hot intel comes out. We devise a plan and are ready to go in 30 min. Get a call to hold off just before leaving the gate, where we wait several house for some brass to fly out from his cushy desk. Target no longer on site by the time we get there. Then we get reamed over every tiny little detail (Why did we kick over a refrigerator to clear the "red zone" behind it instead of pie-ing the corner) as though the fault of the unsuccessful op remained with the operators.

Definition of "blown" may be used loosely, but the bitterness still remains with the notion of political leaders putting lives at risk to further careers instead of get jobs done.

Sorry to get side tracked, but, SEAL Team 6 is not a real thing. It's called DEVGRU or Naval Special Warfare Development Group. It was nicknamed SEAL Team 6 as a way to trick enemies into thinking we had more SEAL teams than we do.

Also, yes many joked about getting Obama reelected. And yes it was a political ploy as the team who tracked down Bin Laden (which was started right after 9/11) just wanted to bomb the compound (this would have been much safer).

I believe republicans would have been just as quick to mark this under their "achievements" as politics is all about winning popularity contests.

Endless credit is due to the team performing the operation, and very little (note: i did not say "none") should be given to those sitting behind a desk just giving the "ok". Unfortunately this is how our military works.

Seen several operations blown by people trying to take credit for it. This includes going after the man who beheaded one of our marines (and I believe a civilian contractor) back in the 2004 time-frame. Politicians have no place on the battlefield.

Drinking while carrying = illegal (Whether you are drunk or not)

Couldn't disagree more.

Capitalism is not perfect. There are parts which reward greed (which is both good and bad in society), but they can be countered on an individual bases.

Problem is, the regulations on capitalism which have been set in place bring a whole new animal of destruction called "Crony capitalism". That is where governments take taxpayer money and give hundreds of billions in revenue to corporations who break the law, pass regulations to prevent the "little guy" from growing into a bigger one and becoming competition, and eventually encourage outsourcing.

I believe, however, that there is another animal that is far more dangerous and detrimental to society. That is the desire to be taken care of. We could even call this laziness. This desire encourages people give up their decision making abilities, their money, and their rights to the select few funded by the very people responsible for crony capitalism.

Money isn't even the whole issue. Its school events or games which aren't allowed to declare a winner. Its policies that take from those that work and give to those that don't in an effort to "equalize results". It's giving grades base entirely on effort, or perceived effort. Its the endless pursuit of Utopia, which can NEVER physically exist in this universe. All these things prevent new generations from developing coping skills and life skills to deal with reality, and THAT is an issue we are encountering more and more as days pass.

I am actually inclined to agree with you on this. Although the degree of evil could be argued, GMO's just aren't a good idea IMO.