Charles C. W. Cooke:
The central question in the case of Michael Brown remains as it has always been: That is, “Was Officer Wilson justified in his decision to pull the trigger?” As it stands, we cannot answer this in any useful or definitive manner — and, crucially, we should not try. We have not heard directly from the shooter himself; we do not yet have any way of determining which of the witnesses are reliable and which are not; and, in the absence of reliable testimony from those who do know what happened, we do not have the raw information that we would need in order to come to a conclusion. Thus far, everything has been mere speculation.
This being so, it has become increasingly irritating to watch those who are longing for a particular outcome begin to draw conclusions from the detritus. Over the last week or so, reports that Michael Brown was a) “unarmed” and b) shot six times have been spun in some quarters into “evidence” that suggests that his killing was either unjustified or overblown. This, I’m afraid, is a considerable mistake.
Let’s start by restating what should be palpably obvious: It is wholly possible for an “unarmed” man to pose a threat. That some people are naturally stronger than others is precisely why weaker people arm themselves, recruiting weapons to their side in order to counteract the advantage that their potential assailants enjoy. Day in, day out, across the world, men beat and abuse women with little more than their fists, sometimes fatally. In the United States alone, more than 800 people are murdered by “hands and fists” each year — twice as many as with all types of rifle. That Michael Brown was unarmed is important. But it is by no means the whole story, and it is certainly not enough to spur claims of innocence. With nothing but his own body, Brown could still have posed a mortal threat to Wilson. He could still have charged Wilson. He could still have gone for Wilson’s gun, as a handful of eyewitnesses suggest that he did. Crucially, he could still have made Officer Wilson reasonably fear for his life. Did he? We have absolutely no idea. Simply saying “he was unarmed,” however, as if it suggests that this must have been an execution? Well, that’s premature and silly.
Equally peculiar is the lamentation that six shots were fired.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385798/unarmed-man-six-shots-charles-c-w-cooke
I really appreciated Mr. Cooke’s comments on shooting UNTIL the danger is over.
I had a gun trained on a home invader (in the house next-door) after he broke a window nearest one of MY windows.
He, if he were athletic enough, could have jumped across from the house the police had surrounded and into my place….IF I LET HIM.
But I made sure he saw me with a gun trained on him.
He didn’t try it.
I had already told myself that, once he had crossed into my property, I was going to shoot until he went down or the gun was empty……no way I was giving a loaded gun to a violent fleeing felon.
So, he and/or my walls would have had 9 bullets in them.
I’ve been arguing online-elsewhere with one “educated” leftist tool who views Ferguson as the start of a revolution. He ridiculously compared the looters, violent thugs and business burners to the original Boston tea party in an attempt to bestow a false and perverted “nobility” to their thievery and wanton destruction. He failed to explain how stealing from and burning down the establishments of innocent local minority business owners could in any way be considered just, or how it furthered his cause for revolution.
If one more person calls that 300-lb moose “unarmed” like it matters… Maybe they need their violence-free life introduced to the real world.
Suppose an officer has nearly lost an eye and has sustained multiple fractures around the eye. Those of you who have sustained an eye injury and those who shoot will know your vision and accuracy will be compromised. If the officer job is to neutralize the perpetrator or unarmed teen who has just wrecked the officer’s face, he will fire until the subject is stopped; especially, if the unarmed teen is charging like a bull. There were multiple wounds to the arm. Obviously the officer’s site picture was distorted and his aim was affected. It is unusual for a suspect to require two head shots to be stopped, so the other wounds were not likely to stop the unarmed teen, but the officer had already sustained enough injuries, should he be required to sustain more because the boy charging him was an unarmed teen? If the facial/skull fractures are real, how much more could the officer be expected to sustain and survive? Are we asking our officers to accept more injuries or death if the suspect is an unarmed black teen?