Michael Brown shooting II

[marplots]

Locking yourself in your vehicle.....have you, ever in your life, seen a police officer lock himself in his squad car when he was faced with a suspect in a robbery? Just the mere suggestion is ludicrous on its face. Once again, you would want this guys head if he did something like this, and a member of the public was hurt as a result. He's armed and trained to handle those EXACT situations without locking himself in the car and waiting for help. It's his job, and the job of every police officer. Hell, in some states it's even considered a right.

This is interesting because of the black/white think. To make it all work, I have to simultaneously believe there was a deadly threat to the officer which required the killing of the suspect, but at the same time, I have to believe that retreating isn't justified because officers are trained to handle situations.

So which is it? Is the threat enough to kill for but not enough to dodge? Officer safety is the usual justification for killing. It ought to be justification for retreating. If circumstances are going to rule the day, then we ought to teach the police how to alter the circumstances to reach a more palatable outcome.

 

[Distracted1]

This is interesting because of the black/white think. To make it all work, I have to simultaneously believe there was a deadly threat to the officer which required the killing of the suspect, but at the same time, I have to believe that retreating isn't justified because officers are trained to handle situations.

So which is it? Is the threat enough to kill for but not enough to dodge? Officer safety is the usual justification for killing. It ought to be justification for retreating. If circumstances are going to rule the day, then we ought to teach the police how to alter the circumstances to reach a more palatable outcome.

A policy of retreating from perceived threats, and one of allowing violent people to run off, IMO would render police useless, and embolden criminals.

 

[plague311]

This is interesting because of the black/white think. To make it all work, I have to simultaneously believe there was a deadly threat to the officer which required the killing of the suspect, but at the same time, I have to believe that retreating isn't justified because officers are trained to handle situations.

I guess I don't get where your incredulity comes from as though two things you "have to simultaneously believe" are completely able to happen. There was a deadly threat to the officer, and he was trained to handle the situation. The public assumed that he acted wrongly, which some of us don't agree with. The police just aren't trained to run away; however, I'm sure there are circumstances where it happens. If they are hopelessly out manned or out gunned. This wasn't one of those cases.

So which is it? Is the threat enough to kill for but not enough to dodge?

False dichotomy. As I previously stated it can be both, and there's no reason to believe there was any wrong doing because it was both.

Officer safety is the usual justification for killing. It ought to be justification for retreating.

I don't get what you are implying. The officers job isn't just self-preservation, which I think, you mistakenly believe to be the case. He has a community to protect, not just himself. If he lets a suspect flee, that has shown to be violent and aggressive, he then puts the community in danger. Whether he knew Brown robbed the store or not is irrelevant due to Brown showing he has no issues or pause to attack a police officer.

be If circumstances are going to rule the day, then we ought to teach the police how to alter the circumstances to reach a more palatable outcome.

I believe your theory is unreasonable and would hinder the police force at large. If no police officer is allowed to confront a criminal and are expected to retreat every time they are faced with confrontation it would make the police force useless in it's entirety. It's easy to armchair quarter back a few months after the situation and state all the things you would have done or what you want to have happened.

 

[Upchurch]

Locking yourself in your vehicle.....have you, ever in your life, seen a police officer lock himself in his squad car when he was faced with a suspect in a robbery? Just the mere suggestion is ludicrous on its face. Once again, you would want this guys head if he did something like this, and a member of the public was hurt as a result. He's armed and trained to handle those EXACT situations without locking himself in the car and waiting for help. It's his job, and the job of every police officer. Hell, in some states it's even considered a right.

I've never, in my life, seen a police officer shoot someone, not in person. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or that it shouldn't happen.

You don't know me well enough to make assumptions about what I would or would not want. Please do not do so. I find the safety of first responders very important. They can do nothing to help others if they get themselves hurt or killed by putting themselves in danger, if it can be helped. It's the first rule you learn being trained as a lifeguard.

It is not Wilson's job to unnecessarily escalate a situation.

Yes, it was the robbery. The chief corrected his remarks later, and if the leaks are to be believed the officer said he backed up because he got the call about the robbery suspects and they matched. Which would be a stupid thing to lie about, since the dispatch is recorded, so I think it is likely true.

It was a stupid thing to lie about in the first place, not to mention lying about why they released information about the robbery. And the leaks shouldn't be happening at all. The DOJ has some concerns about that.

Scratches?
Did Brown scratch his neck in the struggle?
Wouldn't there be some of Wilson's DNA under Browns fingernails IF he scratched him in the struggle?
That's not news I'd expect to see leaked, but it would be something the Grand Jury would likely hear about, isn't it?

There shouldn't be any news leaked. Either it should be cleared for public release or it shouldn't be released at all until after a legal conclusion has been drawn. The whole affair has been bungled since day one.

But yes, there might be skin under Brown's finger nails if he scratched Wilson with his fingers. There might not be. Maybe something Wilson was scratched by something else. *shrug*

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. First it has to be proven that there was a crime at all. There is no presumption of innocence until there is an actual criminal count, which there isn't, and you are already requiring Wilson to prove himself innocent.

No crime? Michael Brown did not accidentally fall onto some bullets and die. Killing someone is a crime. Wilson shot and killed Brown.

To date, there is no one denying this. Instead, Wilson is putting forward a claim of self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense:

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.

Killing someone is unlawful conduct, even for a police officer. Wilson's claim, or so we've heard, is that he did so in self defense. A claim he is using to attempt to justify his otherwise unlawful conduct.

Wilson killed Brown. His guilt, in that he performed the action, is not in question. What is in question is whether or not doing so was a reasonable act of self defense.

Which I believe flies in the face of our judicial system. It is on the grand jury to rule if there was a crime, then it would be on the prosecutor to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 jurors.

This is incorrect. A grand jury determines if there is enough evidence for criminal charges to be brought, not whether a crime occurred.

In my opinion, Wilson should have his day in court. Let a jury hear the evidence and make an informed decision. An informed decision that is not going to be made on an internet forum board, despite the fact that some here have already jumped to their own conclusions.

 

[Cylinder]

Yes, it was the robbery. The chief corrected his remarks later, and if the leaks are to be believed the officer said he backed up because he got the call about the robbery suspects and they matched. Which would be a stupid thing to lie about, since the dispatch is recorded, so I think it is likely true.

Then it was the guy who assaulted a police officer.

Right. The initial contact was for a pedestrian violation warning in which Wilson, according to FPD, was unaware of the stealing BOLO. The claim is that after issuing a warning, Wilson became aware of it and the possible tie to Brown and Johnson. FPD is careful to use the phrase initial contact which implies another contact for another reason. When the chief is questioned about the second contact, he asserts that he is unaware of why the second contact took place -- my guess is to avoid leaking information about Wilson's statement.

As you point out, the narrative purported to be Wilson's claims that Wilson called for backup before making the second contact. This is supported by how quickly his backup arrived on scene -- between 1 and 2 minutes after the shooting. The call for backup should be recorded which should reveal Wilson's motive for that contact -- though it is possible that the purported narrative timeline is wrong and the call for backup referenced the struggle inside the car.

 

[WildCat]

It was a stupid thing to lie about in the first place

There was no "lie in the first place". You simply failed to comprehend the timeline, and assumed the "initial contact" was the only one. Wilson made contact twice - once to tell them to get off the road (initial contact), then moments later when he realized they fit the description of the robbery suspects.

This has been explained several times already.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I've never, in my life, seen a police officer shoot someone, not in person. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or that it shouldn't happen.

You don't know me well enough to make assumptions about what I would or would not want. Please do not do so. I find the safety of first responders very important. They can do nothing to help others if they get themselves hurt or killed by putting themselves in danger, if it can be helped. It's the first rule you learn being trained as a lifeguard.

Police != lifeguard, so I don't see how it's relevant.

It is not Wilson's job to unnecessarily escalate a situation.

And We haven't seen any evidence that he did.

It was a stupid thing to lie about in the first place, not to mention lying about why they released information about the robbery.

Please present the evidence he lied, and wasn't simply mistaken.

And the leaks shouldn't be happening at all. The DOJ has some concerns about that.

Nice platitudes. "we are taking this seriously" HOW are they taking it seriously ? What is it they are doing ?

There shouldn't be any news leaked. Either it should be cleared for public release or it shouldn't be released at all until after a legal conclusion has been drawn. The whole affair has been bungled since day one.

Bungled is a not a fair assessment. I think they have done a decent job keeping a lid on things, all things considered.

But yes, there might be skin under Brown's finger nails if he scratched Wilson with his fingers. There might not be. Maybe something Wilson was scratched by something else. *shrug*

Yes, maybe he scratched himself, too. Lots of maybes.

No crime? Michael Brown did not accidentally fall onto some bullets and die. Killing someone is a crime. Wilson shot and killed Brown.

Killing someone is not a crime in many instances.

To date, there is no one denying this. Instead, Wilson is putting forward a claim of self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense:

​

Killing someone is unlawful conduct, even for a police officer. Wilson's claim, or so we've heard, is that he did so in self defense. A claim he is using to attempt to justify his otherwise unlawful conduct.

Yes, it's an affirmative defense. And once he provides any evidence he was acting in self defense, it's up to the prosecutor to then prove it wasn't , beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wilson killed Brown. His guilt, in that he performed the action, is not in question. What is in question is whether or not doing so was a reasonable act of self defense.

This is incorrect. A grand jury determines if there is enough evidence for criminal charges to be brought, not whether a crime occurred.

You're picking nits, the end result is the same.

In my opinion, Wilson should have his day in court. Let a jury hear the evidence and make an informed decision. An informed decision that is not going to be made on an internet forum board, despite the fact that some here have already jumped to their own conclusions.

Why should he be charged if the evidence is overwhelming that he acted in justifiable self defense ?

 

[plague311]

I've never, in my life, seen a police officer shoot someone, not in person. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or that it shouldn't happen.

Which is why I didn't say "in person." We know police shoot suspects, it happens and it is understood that it can occur. That was the point I was trying to get too. I apologize, I will try to spell it out more simplistically next time. At no point have I seen, or heard of, a police officer locking himself in his car to avoid a confrontation or flee from 1-2 suspects because of an altercation. If you can find an instance of it happening I would be more than happy to read it and concede my point. I, however, can find a bunch of instances where police have shot suspects in the line of duty.

You don't know me well enough to make assumptions about what I would or would not want.

Ok, my fault. So you have no issues with a police officer fleeing after a violent altercation with an individual that was involved in a robbery, and leaving that suspect as a danger to the public? Wilson was handling, and did handle the situation. I can see no reason why he would flee, but that's good to know,. I wonder how much more useless we could make our police force? "Ok, every time someone gets physical I need everyone to flee or lock themselves in their car until backup arrives. This is the best way to ensure that....you know....words."

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

I find the safety of first responders very important. They can do nothing to help others if they get themselves hurt or killed by putting themselves in danger, if it can be helped. It's the first rule you learn being trained as a lifeguard.

Uh, lifeguard training? Ok, probably two completely different training platforms between the lifeguards and the police. I would bet that the lifeguards call the police in those situations as well. The ambulance crew in this situation wasn't able to approach the scene because of shots being fired as well, but that doesn't mean that the police weren't on the scene. They have two different jobs, and react to situations according to what their actual job requires. It's the same reason why my doctor doesn't do my mechanic's work.

It is not Wilson's job to unnecessarily escalate a situation.

That's still your opinion, I don't feel he escalated the situation unnecessarily. He approached them to get out of the road, it appears he drove passed them, got the information about the robbery, to which they matched and then went back. The altercation happened immediately, and was over in approximately 2-4 minutes. In that time you feel that he should have either fled, locked himself in his car, or not engaged Brown. I feel that opinion is ridiculous, as it's not compatible with reality.

There shouldn't be any news leaked. Either it should be cleared for public release or it shouldn't be released at all until after a legal conclusion has been drawn. The whole affair has been bungled since day one.

You didn't have anything to say when witnesses for Brown were running their mouths to every media outlet that would give them face time. That's leaking, isn't it? One of the eyewitnesses that seemed to support Wilson gave their account to a news source on the condition of anonymity. That wasn't a leak, it was an interview. There have been leaks though, yes. I just think it's funny that you don't hold all evidence to the same standard.

No crime? Michael Brown did not accidentally fall onto some bullets and die. Killing someone is a crime. Wilson shot and killed Brown.

So you don't know that people can be shot and there would be no crime? Shooting, and killing someone does not = a crime. If it is in self-defense then it can be ruled there is no crime. No matter how many times you put it in italics it doesn't make it anymore true. We all know Wilson shot and killed Brown, we're waiting to see if it's a crime.

To date, there is no one denying this.

Ok, then I will deny it. I don't think there was a crime as one has yet to be confirmed by the grand jury, Wilson is not in custody, and no official charges have been filed against him. At this point, it is an investigation and information is being presented to the grand jury. So let me be the first then.

Instead, Wilson is putting forward a claim of self defense.

Kind of, he's claiming it was self-defense in the media and in the investigation. Since no charges have been filed he hasn't set an actual plan for his defense yet, though I'm sure it's been discussed. He testified in front of the Grand Jury, but, again, no charges.

Self defense is an affirmative defense:

I know what self-defense is, and I know what an affirmative defense is, thank you.

Killing someone is unlawful conduct, even for a police officer. Wilson's claim, or so we've heard, is that he did so in self defense. A claim he is using to attempt to justify his otherwise unlawful conduct.

Wilson killed Brown. His guilt, in that he performed the action, is not in question. What is in question is whether or not doing so was a reasonable act of self defense.

Yes, you've proclaimed his guilt with consistency, and yet provided nothing that proves he murdered him. Which, of course, is what we're trying to get to. We know he killed him, but that still doesn't make it a crime, despite you putting the words in italics or anything.

This is incorrect. A grand jury determines if there is enough evidence for criminal charges to be brought, not whether a crime occurred.

I think you're pettifogging the issue just a wee bit. Can you please explain, in detail, the difference between finding enough evidence for criminal charges, and deciding if a crime occurred? I really, really feel like this is splitting hairs on an atomic level.

In my opinion, Wilson should have his day in court.

He's been in front of the grand jury.

Let a jury hear the evidence and make an informed decision.

Are you implying the grand jury is going to make an uninformed decision?

An informed decision that is not going to be made on an internet forum board, despite the fact that some here have already jumped to their own conclusions.

You've said "guilt" in relation to Wilson a handful of times, and apparently are willing to bypass portions of the judicial process to have Wilson appear in his "day in court" which may or may not even be required at this point.

 

[marplots]

A policy of retreating from perceived threats, and one of allowing violent people to run off, IMO would render police useless, and embolden criminals.

How are you on letting the police take cover in a gun fight? Is that "retreating from perceived threats" as well? And no one said, "allowing violent people to run off" - just disengaging from that part of the situation that is likely to get either the officer or the citizen killed.

I see no reason why de-escalation shouldn't be a goal, and one officers should be trained to favor instead of overt aggression.

 

[Kestrel]

How are you on letting the police take cover in a gun fight? Is that "retreating from perceived threats" as well? And no one said, "allowing violent people to run off" - just disengaging from that part of the situation that is likely to get either the officer or the citizen killed.

I see no reason why de-escalation shouldn't be a goal, and one officers should be trained to favor instead of overt aggression.

Some people view anything short of a frontal charge with guns blazing as insufficiently manly.

 

[plague311]

How are you on letting the police take cover in a gun fight? Is that "retreating from perceived threats" as well?

No, it's not retreating from perceived threats, it's using your intelligence to take cover instead of standing in the open. Do you not know the difference between the two? They are still engaging the suspect or criminal, they are just doing it from a more intelligent place.

And no one said, "allowing violent people to run off" - just disengaging from that part of the situation that is likely to get either the officer or the citizen killed.

Care to explain how the officer is going to keep the violent person from running off while he's locked in his police car? Do you suggest he drive through the neighborhood yards? What would a suspect do if a police officer got in his car? He'd run, that's what he'd do. Then he's out of sight, and you've let a violent offender loose in the neighborhood.

The officer doesn't just think about himself and the suspect, he has to think of the entire community. If he lets this person go and this person attacks members of the community then it is on that cop. If the suspect kills an innocent civilian after the cop let him go then the officer failed to do his job. Protect and serve the community.

I see no reason why de-escalation shouldn't be a goal, and one officers should be trained to favor instead of overt aggression.

It is a goal, it's a common goal actually. That's why they have negotiators in the SWAT teams, and they try to talk people down from suicides. Just because it's a goal doesn't mean it's always a reasonable option.

 

[Bikewer]

Situations can go from entirely normal to full-on battles in a heartbeat. Been there, done that. Often for reasons that are not discernable by the officers.
I've hypothesized before that in this case, Brown, walking away from a crime which would get him adult jail time, and suddenly confronted by police....Panicked. Instead of running, he attacked.

This has happened many times; people do not react rationally in this mode.

 

[plague311]

Some people view anything short of a frontal charge with guns blazing as insufficiently manly.

This has absolutely nothing to do with someone being "manly" or not, and everything to do with someone doing their JOB.

 

[Distracted1]

Some people view anything short of a frontal charge with guns blazing as insufficiently manly.

I would expect any LEO, be they male or female, to act aggressively to put a stop to violent behavior. If you associate firmness with manliness, so be it, but I don't see it as some sort of machismo, just doing what they are paid for.

 

[Upchurch]

There was no "lie in the first place". You simply failed to comprehend the timeline, and assumed the "initial contact" was the only one. Wilson made contact twice - once to tell them to get off the road (initial contact), then moments later when he realized they fit the description of the robbery suspects.

History is so much more palatable when you can re-write it at will, eh?

Either the Police Chief was lying by omission in the first press conference, was misinformed about Wilson's story, or the story has changed since he gave that press conference, but you cannot pretend that that first press conference provided a different story than ones that came later.



...well, I mean, I guess you can...

 

[Upchurch]

Police != lifeguard, so I don't see how it's relevant.

Because the mindset is completely relevant and I would certainly hope that a police officer is better trained that lifeguard.

 

[Upchurch]

Ok, my fault. So you have no issues with a police officer fleeing after a violent altercation with an individual that was involved in a robbery, and leaving that suspect as a danger to the public?

In what way was Brown a danger to the public? He got Wilson's attention because he was walking in the street, not because he was brandishing a gun or a knife or kicking puppies.

Wilson was handling, and did handle the situation. I can see no reason why he would flee, but that's good to know,. I wonder how much more useless we could make our police force? "Ok, every time someone gets physical I need everyone to flee or lock themselves in their car until backup arrives. This is the best way to ensure that....you know....words."

I didn't say "flee". I said he should put some distance between them. Retreat to a safe distance, call for backup and proceed from there. Honestly, what's wrong with that?

That's still your opinion, I don't feel he escalated the situation unnecessarily. He approached them to get out of the road, it appears he drove passed them, got the information about the robbery, to which they matched and then went back. The altercation happened immediately, and was over in approximately 2-4 minutes. In that time you feel that he should have either fled, locked himself in his car, or not engaged Brown. I feel that opinion is ridiculous, as it's not compatible with reality.

It's also a strawman. I said nothing about locking himself in the car and I didn't say he shouldn't have engaged Brown. I said he should have put some distance between them, which would not have been difficult. I will say that pulling a gun in a close quarters brawl is (1) stupid beyond belief and (2) escalating the situation.

You didn't have anything to say when witnesses for Brown were running their mouths to every media outlet that would give them face time. That's leaking, isn't it? One of the eyewitnesses that seemed to support Wilson gave their account to a news source on the condition of anonymity. That wasn't a leak, it was an interview. There have been leaks though, yes. I just think it's funny that you don't hold all evidence to the same standard.

I don't hold eyewitnesses to the same level of authority or responsibility as the findings of an official investigation. It just carry the same weight.

And, as a matter of fact, I believe I pointed out, in this thread or one of the previous threads, that anecdotal evidence is just not very reliable. I hold Dorian Johnson's story about as credible as I hold Wilson's. It is in both of their best interests to spin the tale in their own favor.

I don't find it at all unreasonable to be skeptical of any eyewitness retelling of what happened, including Wilson's.

So you don't know that people can be shot and there would be no crime? Shooting, and killing someone does not = a crime. If it is in self-defense then it can be ruled there is no crime. No matter how many times you put it in italics it doesn't make it anymore true. We all know Wilson shot and killed Brown, we're waiting to see if it's a crime.

I suggest you re-read the link I posted on affirmative defense. The defendant admits to having performed the an otherwise illegal action but then attempts to prove mitigating circumstances that justifies that an action.

Ok, then I will deny it.

Just be clear, what I stated is that "Wilson shot and killed Brown." Are you denying that "Wilson shot and killed Brown"?

Kind of, he's claiming it was self-defense in the media and in the investigation. Since no charges have been filed he hasn't set an actual plan for his defense yet, though I'm sure it's been discussed. He testified in front of the Grand Jury, but, again, no charges.

True, but the grand jury has not completed its investigation either. And, we currently only have leaks that allege what Wilson is claim happened. Time will tell, one way or the other.

I know what self-defense is, and I know what an affirmative defense is, thank you.

Apparently not.

Yes, you've proclaimed his guilt with consistency, and yet provided nothing that proves he murdered him. Which, of course, is what we're trying to get to. We know he killed him, but that still doesn't make it a crime, despite you putting the words in italics or anything.

Just to be specific, I have proclaimed Wilson's guilt in killing Brown. I never said he murdered him, that has yet to be established.

You've said "guilt" in relation to Wilson a handful of times, and apparently are willing to bypass portions of the judicial process to have Wilson appear in his "day in court" which may or may not even be required at this point.

You've made some pretty big assumptions about what I was saying he was guilty of. Here's a hint: It isn't what you seem to think it is.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...189d80-6055-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html

Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting

Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., law enforcement officials said.

...

Many supporters of Brown say they are already convinced there will be no state-level indictment of the officer. Federal officials have wanted to show that they are conducting a full and fair review of the case.

Justice spokesman Brian Fallon said the case remains open and any discussion of its results is premature. “This is an irresponsible report by The Washington Post that is based on idle speculation,” Fallon said in a statement.

 

[WildCat]

History is so much more palatable when you can re-write it at will, eh?

Either the Police Chief was lying by omission in the first press conference, was misinformed about Wilson's story, or the story has changed since he gave that press conference, but you cannot pretend that that first press conference provided a different story than ones that came later.



...well, I mean, I guess you can...

He was not lying at the first press conference, His exact words were "initial contact". Which implies there was another contact after the initial one.

 

[marplots]

I would expect any LEO, be they male or female, to act aggressively to put a stop to violent behavior. If you associate firmness with manliness, so be it, but I don't see it as some sort of machismo, just doing what they are paid for.

The problem for me is that "act aggressively" is so broad and seems to be the default. I propose another standard: "act effectively."

In some cases, "effectively" will mean temporarily disengaging, other times not. However, one immediate consequence is a focus on maximizing options, instead of relying on strict control of the situation, when such control is likely to fall into the "feared for my life, had to shoot" script.