Michael Brown shooting II

[Newtons Bit]

Sorry, I don't engage conspiracy theorists. Good day.

And I guess you're unaware that Ferguson PD has already been caught changing their story in cases before, right? Henry Davis was charged with destruction of police property after he bled on them after receiving an extra-judicial beating. Then they beat him again in the jail and destroyed the jail house video surveillance showing it. That was a pretty flimsy excuse, so when a federal civil rights hearing was held, they told the judge that they didn't actually file charges on that. Even though the judge had the police reports with their signatures as evidence.

For more reading displeasure: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/12/348010247/in-ferguson-mo-before-michael-brown-there-was-henry-davis

Destruction of evidence and perjury is something that Ferguson PD has already been caught doing. When I see evidence of it happening again, I don't squeeze my eyes shut and scream "COPS ARE PERFECT, COPS ARE PERFECT, CONSPIRACY THEORIES WAAAAAAA!!!" and start crying on my floor.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Let's see... Regular Joe passes Brown and Dorian walking in the street, stops alongside, tells them to get on the sidewalk. Brown assaults Joe, and fearing for his life Joe shoots Brown dead.

Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of room for double standard in this scenario. Are you claiming that the Grand Jury would have (should have?) indicted Regular Joe?

It would be extremely difficult to defend. See this. Generally speaking, a person needs to be in danger of great bodily harm. Wilson had been punched in the face one or twice and had a small bruise. That's not great bodily harm. Being attacked by multiple assailants can also make the qualification of "great bodily harm". But at the time that Wilson shot Brown, there was only one assailant.

There are other examples of police shooting unarmed individuals. Like in this article here. But in those situations, the officer hadn't been struck one or twice and bruised. There was actual great bodily harm already inflicted, or multiple assailants. Wilson's scenario, even if true, is far below those in actual risk.

In addition to the standard of "reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death", the courts have held that the "use deadly force against people who pose a minimal threat and in situations where the conduct of the officers heightens the danger and contributes to the need to use force" is an excessive use of force and a violation of the fourth amendment. The DoJ hit APD with that claim last year. Wilsons actions to escalate the situation to a "surrender or die" meets that definition in my opinion.

 

[WildCat]

It would be extremely difficult to defend. See this. Generally speaking, a person needs to be in danger of great bodily harm. Wilson had been punched in the face one or twice and had a small bruise. That's not great bodily harm.

See how you changed the justification there? You went from only being in danger of great bodily harm to having to actually suffer great bodily harm.

Did you think no one would notice?

 

[WildCat]

And I guess you're unaware that Ferguson PD has already been caught changing their story in cases before, right? Henry Davis was charged with destruction of police property after he bled on them after receiving an extra-judicial beating. Then they beat him again in the jail and destroyed the jail house video surveillance showing it. That was a pretty flimsy excuse, so when a federal civil rights hearing was held, they told the judge that they didn't actually file charges on that. Even though the judge had the police reports with their signatures as evidence.

For more reading displeasure: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/12/348010247/in-ferguson-mo-before-michael-brown-there-was-henry-davis

Destruction of evidence and perjury is something that Ferguson PD has already been caught doing. When I see evidence of it happening again, I don't squeeze my eyes shut and scream "COPS ARE PERFECT, COPS ARE PERFECT, CONSPIRACY THEORIES WAAAAAAA!!!" and start crying on my floor.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Reminds me of the things 9/11 truthers say "but but but Operation Northwoods!!!!11!11111!!".

 

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by plague311
So it's your position that Wilson didn't have a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm?

Yes. I believe that he had a reasonable fear of getting his ass kicked, but not death or great bodily harm.
.

To me, A fear of getting my ass kicked by someone that had already attacked me is a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

The only evidence that Wilson acted improperly is eyewitness evidence that doesn't match the physical evidence. The physical evidence was in the street all afternoon and never once changed its story. Not so much many of the eyewitnesses.

 

[Newtons Bit]

See how you changed the justification there? You went from only being in danger of great bodily harm to having to actually suffer great bodily harm.

Did you think no one would notice?

"This guy had already punched me a couple of times, what's next, he's going to punch me some more! I was in daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanger of great bodily harm!!!!"... doesn't fly. Being attacked by an unarmed assailant requires something more. Like say, getting ones head bashed into concrete.

 

[Newtons Bit]

To me, A fear of getting my ass kicked by someone that had already attacked me is a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

I understand that mentality. However the problem with that line of thinking is that the justice system doesn't share that view. Except when it is a cop acting in self-defense. And that's my biggest problem.

 

[WildCat]

"This guy had already punched me a couple of times, what's next, he's going to punch me some more! I was in daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanger of great bodily harm!!!!"... doesn't fly. Being attacked by an unarmed assailant requires something more. Like say, bashing a head into concrete.

It doesn't require the assailant to even touch you. All that is required is a reasonable belief that they will try to cause you great bodily harm. You certainly don't have to be taking a beating to come to this conclusion, nor does the law require such.

In Wilson's case Brown had already assaulted him in his car, tried to take his gun, and then outside of the car had turned around and was coming back at him.

Cop, civilian, it doesn't matter. It's a justified shoot.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Reminds me of the things 9/11 truthers say "but but but Operation Northwoods!!!!11!11111!!".

You really don't see a difference between a loony plan concocted by the some pentagon staffers in 1962 and a small police department that has been caught destroying evidence, perjuring themselves to a federal judge, tear gassing journalists and raping jail inmates all within the past few years?

Really?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"This guy had already punched me a couple of times, what's next, he's going to punch me some more! I was in daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanger of great bodily harm!!!!"... doesn't fly. Being attacked by an unarmed assailant requires something more. Like say, getting ones head bashed into concrete.

So you can shoot him after he bashes your head into the concrete? Assuming you're still alive, that is.

 

[Toontown]

So you can shoot him after he bashes your head into the concrete? Assuming you're still alive, that is.

That is correct. You must give an assailant a fair opportunity to kill you. If the assailant fails to finish you off after doing you significant bodily harm, he is considered to be an incompetent assailant, and may then be required to pay with his life.

<sarcasm>

 

[Newtons Bit]

So you can shoot him after he bashes your head into the concrete? Assuming you're still alive, that is.

"He was coming right at me, I had to make a move!"

If you look at some of the cases in the article I linked up-thread, this is what police officers usually do before resorting to lethal force against unarmed assailants. But the Ferguson PD, like many Police Departments have bought into the idea that ANY threat of violence should be treated as a threat of great bodily harm or death. And that ain't right.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

The thing is, it's a very different thing to launch an attack on a police officer vs. some random citizen.

Reason being, everyone knows police officers are armed. Everyone knows that if you attack them, they are going to respond and one of the very likely responses will be that they draw their gun and go into a mode where opening fire on you becomes a very easy reaction to trigger from that point on.

People also know that police officers are the direct representatives of the law, and that by attacking one you've put yourself in a world of immediate and very serious legal peril. The police have backup they can call, they have the ability to question people in the area, they have investigative powers, they are presumed to be recording video from their vehicle, and all this and more add up to good reason to expect that if you attack a cop, the odds that you will be caught and punished harshly are greater than if you just run up to some random guy on the street (or guy who mouthed off to you) and punch him a couple times, then run off.

For one thing, a lot of the time when you attack another civilian, they don't even report it to be police. A lot of people don't consider it worth the effort or time to do so because they don't think you're likely to be found. Unfortunately, they have good reason to think that. Whereas if you attack a police officer, the event is instantly "reported to the police" because you attacked them directly. The cops are not going to forget about it or chalk it up to "well that's just life in the city" like a civilian might.

All these reasons and others make the act of physically attacking a police officer a very distinct event from physically attacking another citizen, and because of that it is reasonable for police to treat it very seriously. If someone is desperate/loony enough to attack a cop, it is reasonable to assume they are also desperate/loony enough to culminate that attack in murdering the officer if they're able to. Because even if the initial attack was impulsive, the person's desperation will ratchet up massively once they realize "oh crap I've attacked a cop" and the "I can't go back to jail" vibe can easily result in their mindset becoming that they MUST kill this cop to have any chance of getting away with what they've already done to him.

Anyone who will attack a cop is immediately and conclusively showing themselves to be a very serious and dangerous criminal and threat to society.

I think it's entirely appropriate for cops to interpret an attack against them as being more likely to be an attempt at murdering them, than a citizen who gets into a shouting match with another citizen and fists start flying.

 

[PhantomWolf]

"This guy had already punched me a couple of times, what's next, he's going to punch me some more! I was in daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanger of great bodily harm!!!!"... doesn't fly. Being attacked by an unarmed assailant requires something more. Like say, getting ones head bashed into concrete.

How many punches does it take to kill someone?

 

[WildCat]

You really don't see a difference between a loony plan concocted by the some pentagon staffers in 1962 and a small police department that has been caught destroying evidence, perjuring themselves to a federal judge, tear gassing journalists and raping jail inmates all within the past few years?

Really?

Neither is relevant to this case.

 

[Aber]

This thread has now degenerated to the stage where its main value is to identify candidates for my ignore list.

 

[Toontown]

This thread has now degenerated to the stage where its main value is to identify candidates for my ignore list.

The thread never had any value and shouldn't even exist. The subject is a non-issue which has been blown all out of proportion by a gaggle of cackling chickens who are posing ridiculously as "skeptics".

BTW, do you accept volunteers for your ignore list? I see definite advantages to being on your ignore list.

 

[Wolrab]

I understand that mentality. However the problem with that line of thinking is that the justice system doesn't share that view. Except when it is a cop acting in self-defense. And that's my biggest problem.

I see and understand your concerns. There should never be a double standard.
As for the FPD being corrupt, it doesn't necessarily make Wilson corrupt. All we have on him are his actions with Brown, some young woman saying he swore at her, and 15 seconds of video where he can be heard being a dick. I would need more to consider him corrupt.

 

[tyr_13]

The thread never had any value and shouldn't even exist.

What a completely fatuous statement.

There was a shooting where people claimed the man was surrendering, and that was worth examining. There was further a history of corruption and racial tensions in the town PD. Protests were met with excessive police force, reporters were needless maced and arrested, and camera equipment attacked by police.

There was plenty worthy of discussion, and even if you believe none of that was, there were riots. This thread has had value, even if much of it hasn't been grade A discussion and a multitude of bad arguments have been and continue to be advanced.

 

[Toontown]

What a completely fatuous statement.

There was a shooting where people claimed the man was surrendering, and that was worth examining. There was further a history of corruption and racial tensions in the town PD. Protests were met with excessive police force, reporters were needless maced and arrested, and camera equipment attacked by police.

There was plenty worthy of discussion, and even if you believe none of that was, there were riots. This thread has had value, even if much of it hasn't been grade A discussion and a multitude of bad arguments have been and continue to be advanced.

Giant violent thug robs store and assaults cop
Giant violent thug is shot and killed
Mobs of smaller thugs seize the opportunity to riot, burn, and loot
Police use limited force to control and discourage burning, looting rioters
Rabblerousers feign shock and dismay at police corruption

That idiotic series of events might have been sensibly discussed in another forum. Not this one. Not with this crew. A sensible discussion would have disposed of the issue in a few pages. Instead, you generated 82 pages of hysterical, utterly tedious cackling.