Michael Brown Shooting

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If what I've been hiearing is true the shooting was justified. I heard and I saw a video where this large thug had just robbed a store and while making his getaway he ran into the cop who at the time was unawarw of the robbery.

How is the cop justified in killing a person for an incident that the cop was not aware of?

You can make an appeal to karma that Brown's death was "justified" because of his previous actions, but that doesn't absolve the officer of murder/manslaughter. That's not how things work.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is a good point. I am not sure how immediately this info is normally released, but it would seem obvious that it should be quickly released. It will be interesting to see how soon the Brown family's autopsy (and Obama's) are released as well.

Information on the cause of death in shootings -- the number of shots and where the deceased was struck -- is normally released in hours. Anyone who watches the news or reads a newspaper or news site knows that. It usually comes from the police, too.

Now it's possible the police are sitting on it because it will be inflammatory because Brown was shot in the back. Or it is possible the police are sitting on it because Brown wasn't shot in the back and that information may also inflame the situation.

The larger point is, the police do not have the right to sit on information. It should be released in a timely fashion.

 

[Cylinder]

Question- does a grand jury come under double jeopardy clause?

No. Jeopardy attaches when the trial jury is sworn. A no true bill would require the prosecutor to petition the grand jury's convening judge for permission to resubmit the charges. It happens, but generally without some new bombshell, if the prosecutor can't convince 9 of 12 without a defense presentation they understand they cannot get a unanimous verdict.

If the finding is 'no bill' can somebody like Rev Al get a special prosecutor involved, and try for a trail?

The governor has sole authority to appoint special prosecutors, so Sharpton would have to go through Nixon. More likely would be a federal indictment for violations of the Civil Rights Act. Wilson should very much fear a federal indictment in late October, regardless of the facts of the case.

Or will the 'no bill' end it? I'm sure new evidence can re-open, but otherwise?

A no bill would almost assure Wilson wouldn't be convicted in state court assuming the grand jury and trial jury was objective.

 

[ehcks]

How is the cop justified in killing a person for an incident that the cop was not aware of?

You can make an appeal to karma that Brown's death was "justified" because of his previous actions, but that doesn't absolve the officer of murder/manslaughter. That's not how things work.

And even that would still require that his previous actions themselves justified this "karma." Is unarmed robbery a capital offense?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And even that would still require that his previous actions themselves justified this "karma." Is unarmed robbery a capital offense?

Some people have a disturbingly low threshold for justifying the end of another person's life...

 

[Cylinder]

And even that would still require that his previous actions themselves justified this "karma." Is unarmed robbery a capital offense?

No. If Wilson shot Brown as punishment for the strong-arm robbery, he should be convicted and sentenced to death with the aggravating factor being the subversion of due process under color of law.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Why do people keep acting like they don't understand the distinction here?

Not talking about shooting him as punishment for the robbery.

Not talking about the officer even needing to be aware of the robbery.

Talking about how the robbery provides info and context which gives a massive dose of credibility to the officer's version of being attacked unexpectedly by Brown. It helps us understand why Brown would do that. First by showing us he was someone who would use violence to avoid accountability for his crimes, and second by letting us know he had every reason to believe the cop was there to bust him for the crime he'd just committed. That would make him paranoid and desperate.

And if the officer's version being true still wouldn't put him in the clear, or if the evidence just blatantly contradicted his version, given the pressure he'd probably be charged already.

 

[theprestige]

At least now we know that it's extremely unlikely that Brown did anything in his encounter with the cop to justify his shooting. Since it turns out that Brown was not only just a "teenager", but was a timid, retiring example of the type, just a frightened kid who would never resort to physical violence if he didn't get his way.

The idea that Brown would ever unnecessarily escalate a violent confrontation is extremely implausible, given his "body of work".

 

[Brainster]

Information on the cause of death in shootings -- the number of shots and where the deceased was struck -- is normally released in hours. Anyone who watches the news or reads a newspaper or news site knows that. It usually comes from the police, too.

Now it's possible the police are sitting on it because it will be inflammatory because Brown was shot in the back. Or it is possible the police are sitting on it because Brown wasn't shot in the back and that information may also inflame the situation.

The larger point is, the police do not have the right to sit on information. It should be released in a timely fashion.

Agreed, especially since the stated reason for releasing the cigar robbery tape was an FOIA request.

 

[Reheat]

I have been following this insane bickering from the beginning and don't think I've missed any pertinent points. I have refused to post simply because it is nothing but ideological bickering. Each interprets what is known via their established views, to hell with skepticism. Since it's getting to the point of nothing new personal attacks are the result.

Here's something new that hasn't been discussed. Since Wilson discharged his firearm, most likely a 40 caliber pistol inside his vehicle according to the St. Louis County police chief (it's as close to a fact that currently exists) he would have been deaf and stunned as a result for a considerably long time, even to the point of permanent damage to his hearing... Consequently, he would not have heard the "don't shoot" some witnesses say Brown uttered. The ensuing actions happened so fast that the stunning nature of the gunshot effects could have caused some momentary confusion. Those who have ever fired a firearm inside a closed structure will be quite familiar with this fact... It may or may not have influenced his subsequent actions, but it is something to consider and perhaps it can even replace the "personal attacks" taking place...

 

[LTC8K6]

Information on the cause of death in shootings -- the number of shots and where the deceased was struck -- is normally released in hours. Anyone who watches the news or reads a newspaper or news site knows that. It usually comes from the police, too.

Now it's possible the police are sitting on it because it will be inflammatory because Brown was shot in the back. Or it is possible the police are sitting on it because Brown wasn't shot in the back and that information may also inflame the situation.

The larger point is, the police do not have the right to sit on information. It should be released in a timely fashion.

IIRC, three autopsies are going to be done. Local, federal, and one by the family.

That will surely result in clarity...

Or maybe they need a tie breaker?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

How is the cop justified in killing a person for an incident that the cop was not aware of?

You can make an appeal to karma that Brown's death was "justified" because of his previous actions, but that doesn't absolve the officer of murder/manslaughter. That's not how things work.

The robbery suggests a motive for Brown to resist the cop, whatever the cop knew.

In all of this, remember the following:
1. You were not there
2. You get your information from journalists who
(a) Are not very bright
(b) Have been ideologically vetted by J-school professors
(c) Have demonstrated their bias and mendacity (e.g. NBC's selective editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call, the use of Treyvon Martin baby pictures when gangsta culture photos were available, etc.).
(d) Have an interest in stoking passions.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why is the chief's second hand account evidence while three eye witnesses that have given their own accounts, not?

Because "eye witness accounts" given on Oprah are useless, unless they are also given in sworn statements to the police or on the witness stand.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have been following this insane bickering from the beginning and don't think I've missed any pertinent points. I have refused to post simply because it is nothing but ideological bickering. Each interprets what is known via their established views, to hell with skepticism. Since it's getting to the point of nothing new personal attacks are the result.

Here's something new that hasn't been discussed. Since Wilson discharged his firearm, most likely a 40 caliber pistol inside his vehicle according to the St. Louis County police chief (it's as close to a fact that currently exists) he would have been deaf and stunned as a result for a considerably long time, even to the point of permanent damage to his hearing... Consequently, he would not have heard the "don't shoot" some witnesses say Brown uttered. The ensuing actions happened so fast that the stunning nature of the gunshot effects could have caused some momentary confusion. Those who have ever fired a firearm inside a closed structure will be quite familiar with this fact... It may or may not have influenced his subsequent actions, but it is something to consider and perhaps it can even replace the "personal attacks" taking place...

I have fired guns in enclosures without ear protection. It was not pleasant, and it bothered my hearing, but in no way did it render me deaf or confused. It also didn't prevent me from seeing two hands in the air.

 

[Mumbles]

The cop gets the benefit of the doubt because he represents me. We hire him, train him up, give him a gun and expect him to go out there and protect our interests. He might be a bad cop with his own motivations, but starting out, he is doing whatever he is doing, not for personal reasons or self-interest, but because I pay him to do it.

That gets at one of the legs of the means-opportunity-motivation bit. Our default should be the cop as a neutral actor. Sadly, this is not how police officers are always viewed, and I can't say that that too is without reason.

Oddly, I hold cops to greater scrutiny, for the exact same reason. They have great power, and great responsibility. I assume that most police fully understand that responsibility, and accept it because they love all of the times where they help someone *without* using force - or saving someone's life using force.

And that's one major reason why I like dash-cams and body cams - as many others have said already, not only do they point out the bad cop, they also exonerate the good cop, who we *want* to be on the force. That's also why I'm still waiting for a full report, despite thinking that the evidence to date points strongly against officer Wilson - I think his chief is doing a terrible job protecting him, but I actually want to think that he's a good guy, even if the rest of the local police have acted horribly. I would *like* to think that this shooting was reasonable.

Despite my own personal experiences - the Charles Stuart Case, being thrown against a wall and jailed because I walked through a turnstile on the subway, having *every* black man I know have absurd incidents with cops - I want to believe.

I want a good police force. I want to not worry every damn time I see a cop sitting beside me at a stop sign. I want to not go looking to buy a new car, and immediately think "Huh, what would a cop think, if he saw me driving this?" And failing that, I'd rather at least think that we have such a police force, and be wrong.

But then we get a cop saying that Trayvon Martin "must regret" running away from George Zimmerman. Or a bunch of handwaving when a cop shoots Michael Brown. Or saying that the coerced testimonies of black guys in the Charles Stuart case are "known liars". Or a cop screaming that protesters at a police shooting are "animals".

But over and over, we see the exact opposite. I never lived anywhere close to St. Louis, but that's where the anger, and the exhaustion, is coming from, I'll guarantee it. People seem to think that this is fun - it's really not. It's enraging, and exhausting.

 

[shuize]

There's this sense of entitlement/arrogance he displays in that video that gets me. In my opinion, Brown's crime is even more disturbing/heinous than if he were to have robbed the store at gunpoint while donning a skii mask. At least then, it would appear that Brown was aware that his conduct was despicable and criminal. Instead, he appears entitled and justified in his actions, as if he owned that store -- not the least bit worried that he was being recorded. That this happened just minutes prior to his confrontation with Wilson, changes the whole context of that encounter. It will certainly factor largely in this case if it makes it to trial.

Yes, which is why in my experience prosecutors would have loved that video. It's a slam dunk strong-arm robbery. But the "What are you gonna do about it, Bitch?" intimidation of the shopkeeper at the end is just the sort of thing they fantasize showing judges at sentencing.

The extreme left needs to stop downplaying it as "petty theft". It's embarrassing. You can be executed in cold blood while still being a lowlife scumbag (and yes, Brown was a scumbag). The two are not incompatible.

But if it's not "petty theft," it doesn't fit the "Young black man shot by police on his way to cure cancer" narrative we were given from the start.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sherlock Holmes.

Though I would replace bane of all profession with bane to rational thinking.

You would think that would be obvious, but apparently not.

There was a terrific panel at TAM this year where it was pointed out that skepticism can be "domain specific". The example they gave is that every once in a while, you'll read about a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry who thinks the Moon landing was a hoax, or that 9/11 was an inside job. Their skepticism (critical thinking skills) in science are among the sharpest in the world. But take them out of that domain, and hilarity ensues. I'm seeing a lot of that here and on Facebook regarding this case. People who recognize that homeopathy is nonsense, and there really isn't a face on Mars, also have been baptized into the religion of St Michael of Ferguson, and no amount of contrary evidence will shake their belief system.

 

[johnny karate]

At least now we know that it's extremely unlikely that Brown did anything in his encounter with the cop to justify his shooting. Since it turns out that Brown was not only just a "teenager", but was a timid, retiring example of the type, just a frightened kid who would never resort to physical violence if he didn't get his way.

The idea that Brown would ever unnecessarily escalate a violent confrontation is extremely implausible, given his "body of work".

The violence Brown displayed was shoving a guy - while admittedly in the process of stealing something - but still, he shoved a guy. He didn't punch him. He didn't hit him with a baseball bat or a tire iron. He shoved him.

I have no doubt in my mind that Michael Brown committed a crime in that store, and that he deserved to be punished for it accordingly. But again, the act of violence he commited that has earned him the status of "violent thug" is shoving a guy.

You know who else shoved someone (a law enforcement agent, actually) while in the commission of a crime? George Zimmerman.

So I'd be really curious to know how may people who label Michael Brown a "violent thug" capable of escalating a violent confrontation because of his "body of work" expressed similar sentiment towards George Zimmerman.

And for those who didn't... why the distinction?

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, which is why in my experience prosecutors would have loved that video. It's a slam dunk strong-arm robbery. But the "What are you gonna do about it, Bitch?" intimidation of the shopkeeper at the end is just the sort of thing they fantasize showing judges at sentencing.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/ZRLVOv3.gif[/qimg]





But if it's not "petty theft," it doesn't fit the "Young black man shot by police on his way to cure cancer" narrative we were given from the start.

What is Brown doing when he leans through the counter window, though? IIRC, that's when he takes the property by force. You didn't show that part of the encounter at the store.

 

[Cylinder]

Information on the cause of death in shootings -- the number of shots and where the deceased was struck -- is normally released in hours. Anyone who watches the news or reads a newspaper or news site knows that. It usually comes from the police, too.

Now it's possible the police are sitting on it because it will be inflammatory because Brown was shot in the back. Or it is possible the police are sitting on it because Brown wasn't shot in the back and that information may also inflame the situation.

The larger point is, the police do not have the right to sit on information. It should be released in a timely fashion.

It's not routinely released by official police channels in a disputed shooting. I can certainly understand the desire to have timely information about government operations but this is just not a case where you will get those details.

If I go into the c-store tonight, rob it, and shoot the clerk, the mechanics of the shooting are of little moment to the prosecution of the case. Was I ten feet away? Twenty? Was the clerk in the cash register when I shot? Was he retreating to the walk-in? Those become less significant details to personally identifying information.

The thing in dispute here is the mechanics of the shooting. Where were the actors and what were they doing. Identity matters little.

Remember that in the Zimmerman case, the mechanics of injury was only released with the autopsy was sunshined, Before that, it was stated with some degree of certainty by many that Martin was shot in the head, shot in the back, shot multiple times, etc... Even in the face of that misinformation festering community outrage, it was withheld.