Michael Brown Shooting

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Did Brown at least have time to enjoy one of the cigars he stole?

 

[LTC8K6]

One of the police chief interviews replayed:

"The officer told them to get off the street, one complied, one didn't, the officer went back."

Clearly not an officer looking for a robbery suspect.

The cigarillo theft is a convenient coincidence but is going to be a red herring.

The SCPD chief may have simply been reciting Johnson's version...

The officer apparently left a sick call to look for the robbery suspects. He was following an ambulance to the hospital apparently, when he answered the call about the robbery.

If it's true, then it is likely on the recordings of radio traffic.

Radio traffic recordings will be important. The officer should have called in about the encounter.

 

[Giordano]

Most of the commentators say when Brown manhandled the clerk, it did become ,technically, a violent crime.
The term Strong Arm Robbery is used for a robbery where violence is used but no weapon is involved.
Accept it;Brown as not the little angel he was being portrayed as.
Whether or not the officer was justified in multiple shots is another thing.

Have you convicted him already? Don't you need 12 more jurors to make it official? Shouldn't a judge pass sentence first? Would the death penalty been likely? I don't know that Brown was guilty or not. It is the shooting of an unarmed individual that concerns me. And if Strong Arm robbery specifically means violence is used but there is no weapon involved, then M. Brown's actions, and the second part of the Supreme Court's ruling, that the suspect's "escape would pose a significant and serious threat" do not appear to apply here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At this time we can't say with certainty whether the officer was initially interested in them because they matched the description from the robbery, or if he became aware of the description while he was interacting with them/aware of them (called in and asked for it to be repeated or expanded upon? Coincidentally it came through at the time? who knows) or if he was utterly unaware of the robbery.

But regardless of what the cop knew and when he knew it, US knowing now about it helps shed light on why Brown might have been adamant that he was not going to willingly interact with this officer, because HE would have believed the cops were looking to question him about the robbery whether they were or not.

He may have realized that serious prison time could result from a strong arm robbery, or he may not have. But either way, I doubt he wanted to be interacting with cops at that time, and again... this helps us understand why he behaved in the way the officer said he did.

I'm saying what the police chief said. I just watched him say it, the stop was for not getting on the sidewalk.

And the stop was not consistent with stopping suspects of a robbery.

You can believe what you want, those are facts.

 

[casebro]

It's my understanding that laws which allow the shooting of a fleeing felon only allow a direct witness to do the shooting. You as a third party can't shoot a guy who's running down the street nearby you just because someone yells "he robbed me!", for example.

If Johnson's report is fudged by him just a little, and instead of the the cop hitting Brown with the door, Brown got proactive and slammed the door on the officer's leg. That assault would make the cop a "direct witness". Fleeing felon, slam dunk.

 

[casebro]

I'm saying what the police chief said. I just watched him say it, the stop was for not getting on the sidewalk.

And the stop was not consistent with stopping suspects of a robbery.

You can believe what you want, those are facts.

Yeah but when Wilson backed up, Brown might have thought he had been ID'ed. And figured Wilson was coming for him for the strong arm robbery.

Do you suppose we will have to wait for a trial to get the officers full story?

 

[LTC8K6]

Have you convicted him already? Don't you need 12 more jurors to make it official? Shouldn't a judge pass sentence first? Would the death penalty been likely? I don't know that Brown was guilty or not. It is the shooting of an unarmed individual that concerns me. And if Strong Arm robbery specifically means violence is used but there is no weapon involved, then M. Brown's actions, and the second part of the Supreme Court's ruling, that the suspect's "escape would pose a significant and serious threat" do not appear to apply here.

I refer you to that other case wherein we all should have learned that an unarmed person can threaten your life.

For example, if Big Mike were beating on the cop, and winning the fight, the cop could shoot him legally, and the public would be outraged about it.

Just as if Big Mike were beating up on anyone else, he could be shot in self defense.

Unarmed doesn't necessarily mean anything at all until we know more about exactly what happened.

 

[Giordano]

At this time we can't say with certainty whether the officer was initially interested in them because they matched the description from the robbery, or if he became aware of the description while he was interacting with them/aware of them (called in and asked for it to be repeated or expanded upon? Coincidentally it came through at the time? who knows) or if he was utterly unaware of the robbery.

But regardless of what the cop knew and when he knew it, US knowing now about it helps shed light on why Brown might have been adamant that he was not going to willingly interact with this officer, because HE would have believed the cops were looking to question him about the robbery whether they were or not.

He may have realized that serious prison time could result from a strong arm robbery, or he may not have. But either way, I doubt he wanted to be interacting with cops at that time, and again... this helps us understand why he behaved in the way the officer said he did.

Whatever was in Mr. Brown's mind (difficult to tell now, isn't it?) to cause him to struggle or flee, his shooting appears highly unjustified according to the law, unless by his actions (at the time of the shooting) he was representing a imminent threat of physical harm to the officer and bystanders.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

And the stop was not consistent with stopping suspects of a robbery.

A couple things:

1.) Could the stop have been consistent with stopping two people you think MAY have been involved but aren't sure about yet, and who you hope to ascertain during interactions, whether they had been involved or not?

2.) Assuming the officer had no earthly idea about the robbery, let alone that these two were the culprits, and that he was just interacting with them purely based on their walking on the street... what is the importance of this, from your perspective?

It doesn't matter if a cop initially is interacting with me because I spat my gum out, if I assault him and try to murder him with his own firearm, I don't get to appeal to the initial conditions of the stop as some sort of "yea but this was just about some gum" excuse to undermine how he reacts to what I did DURING the stop. Do I?

By the way, I can get myself shot by an officer very easily... just walk up to him with my hand in my back pocket, and refuse all commands he gives. All while being entirely unarmed.

 

[Kaosium]

If Johnson's report is fudged by him just a little, and instead of the the cop hitting Brown with the door, Brown got proactive and slammed the door on the officer's leg. That assault would make the cop a "direct witness". Fleeing felon, slam dunk.

According to early reports the officer was treated for a 'swollen head.' Have you seen anything indicating further injuries?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm saying what the police chief said. I just watched him say it, the stop was for not getting on the sidewalk.

And the stop was not consistent with stopping suspects of a robbery.

You can believe what you want, those are facts.

It's possible that recognition did not occur until after the officer went past the two and saw them in the mirror?

That could explain backing up with the door open.

 

[Giordano]

A couple things:

1.) Could the stop have been consistent with stopping two people you think MAY have been involved but aren't sure about yet, and who you hope to ascertain during interactions, whether they had been involved or not?

2.) Assuming the officer had no earthly idea about the robbery, let alone that these two were the culprits, and that he was just interacting with them purely based on their walking on the street... what is the importance of this, from your perspective?

It doesn't matter if a cop initially is interacting with me because I spat my gum out, if I assault him and try to murder him with his own firearm, I don't get to appeal to the initial conditions of the stop as some sort of "yea but this was just about some gum" excuse to undermine how he reacts to what I did DURING the stop. Do I?

By the way, I can get myself shot by an officer very easily... just walk up to him with my hand in my back pocket, and refuse all commands he gives. All while being entirely unarmed.

As I have said, whatever the officer thought Mr. Brown might have done, the shooting appears highly unjustified according to the law, unless by Mr. Brown's actions (at the time of the shooting) he was representing a imminent threat of physical harm to the officer and bystanders. Of course one might be a bit more inclined to feel sympathy toward the officer if Mr. Brown had just killed someone, vs. spitting out some gum. But the law is the same.

 

[Lerxst]

A robbery is by definition a violent crime. It seems some people want to split hairs as to what violence really means, but the reality is if someone else is present and you are taking something from them, against their will, then it is reasonable to believe you cannot do so without at least a threat of violence. Just look at the difference in size between the man in the video and the store clerk, and without even considering he did grab the clerk by the throat (sure seems like a violent act) he is still at a minimum, threatening violence.

If that is Michael Brown, and it sure looks a lot like him and his friend, then this changes everything in my mind and I imagine it will for courts as well.

 

[LTC8K6]

Whatever was in Mr. Brown's mind (difficult to tell now, isn't it?) to cause him to struggle or flee, his shooting appears highly unjustified according to the law, unless by his actions (at the time of the shooting) he was representing a imminent threat of physical harm to the officer and bystanders.

We don't know the particulars of the shooting yet.

He may have been shot when near the car during a struggle with the officer to avoid going to jail for robbery.

He may have been shot away from the car while trying to surrender to the officer.

At this point, there is no way to tell.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Make no mistake, if this officer ends up charged with anything whatsoever that will represent a travesty of justice and an enormous victory for mob rule and racial pandering.

We're creating a situation where we send cops into the worst of the worst parts of our country, and ask them to police said areas... and then we make it impossible for them to do their job by, as a society, deciding we favor the criminals over the cops.

I don't care what Brown was or was not doing while being shot. Of course if he lost the struggle for the gun he would try to get away from the ensuing gunfire, when at least one shot had already happened in the car. That's no great credit to him as a person.

Once he tried to murder a police officer, that officer had an obligation to the community to punch his ticket. And I'm glad he did.

 

[jimbob]

We do know that in 2009, the Ferguson cops charged a man with a felony for damaging their uniform by bleeding on it after they beat him up whilst being wrongly arrested.

 

[Giordano]

It doesn't matter if a cop initially is interacting with me because I spat my gum out, if I assault him and try to murder him with his own firearm, I don't get to appeal to the initial conditions of the stop as some sort of "yea but this was just about some gum" excuse to undermine how he reacts to what I did DURING the stop. Do I?

By the way, I can get myself shot by an officer very easily... just walk up to him with my hand in my back pocket, and refuse all commands he gives. All while being entirely unarmed.

Yes, resisting arrest and assault of a police officer are crimes and you could be arrested if you did these things. You might even even be justifiably shot if you were struggling for the police officer's gun. But even if you did this (which is far from established in this case) you cannot justifiably be shot latter, when fleeing, unless you represent a likely and imminent threat of harm to other people it is the law.

At yes, if you approach a police officer with a hand in your back pocket, and don't stop it on command, you do represent a likely and imminent threat of harm to the officer. It may be an empty threat. But it is a threat. The police officer is then allowed to do whatever neutralizes the threat: they may shoot you if they think that is the minimum use of force required to eliminate the threat. But they can't shoot you legally if you then run. They certainly can't keep pumping bullets into you once the threat is eliminated. That is an execution.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

We do know that in 2009, the Ferguson cops charged a man with a felony for damaging their uniform by bleeding on it after they beat him up whilst being wrongly arrested.

link?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Make no mistake, if this officer ends up charged with anything whatsoever that will represent a travesty of justice and an enormous victory for mob rule and racial pandering.

We're creating a situation where we send cops into the worst of the worst parts of our country, and ask them to police said areas... and then we make it impossible for them to do their job by, as a society, deciding we favor the criminals over the cops.

I don't care what Brown was or was not doing while being shot. Of course if he lost the struggle for the gun he would try to get away from the ensuing gunfire, when at least one shot had already happened in the car. That's no great credit to him as a person.

Once he tried to murder a police officer, that officer had an obligation to the community to punch his ticket. And I'm glad he did.

God I hope you make the move to the new forum. This would be hard to replicate out of whole cloth.

 

[LTC8K6]

So, what if Brown was shot once during a struggle for his gun at the car. The gun fired during the struggle.

Then Brown ran 35 feet away and tried to surrender, but was shot again anyway.

And the coroner rules that the first, and legal, shot was already fatal?