Michael Brown Shooting

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So far I've remained silent on this case rather than stupidly rushing to judgment (like so many of you), but in light of these new revelations, I'm gonna have to side with Al Sharpton.

After all, he was right on the money with Tawana Brawley.

 

[Giz]

Sure a cop can shoot a fleeing violent suspect.The justification is to protect you and me.

Depending on what happened in the car, (assault on a peace officer) and whether the officer had good cause to believe Brown had just committed a strong arm robbery, it may be open season on Mike Browns.

Doesn't there generally need to be a presumption of imminent threat?

 

[LTC8K6]

It is absolutely irrelevant what Mr. Brown might have done as to if the officer can shoot Mr. Brown or not. The officer's other actions (stopping, arrest, etc.) may depend on what the officer thought Mr. Brown was guilty of or not, but the choice you present is completely irrelevant to the right of an officer to shoot s person. In fact, in many places in the USA, the officer didn't even have a right to lift his gun from the holster.

How can that be?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess my question is, has anyone from the Ferguson PD said before today that the reason Brown was stopped was because he resembled a suspect in a nearby robbery? AFAICT, the narrative up to now has been "he and his friend were walking in the street and were told to get out of it," and the altercation resulted from their refusal to do so, with no implication that the officer wanted to question Brown in connection to a robbery. I'll happily accept correction on this point, some contemporary evidence that the PD said something like this before today, because, even as bad a reason as that would still be for shooting an unarmed man, it would be better than no reason at all.

Nope.

http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...-report-store.jpg.pagespeed.ic.LLlIzPOaH6.jpg

There's the report.

And it is not by the cop who did the shooting.

Looking at a longer version of the video, there's no doubt that is Brown and Johnson. You can clearly see it's them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Doesn't there generally need to be a presumption of imminent threat?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/15/michael-brown-when-can-officers-shoot-ferguson

While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.

David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Article seems to do a good job outlining the details regarding when you can/can't shoot...

 

[Cain]

After all, he was right on the money with Tawana Brawley.

That was before my time, but I wish Al went back to that look. He needs to put on some weight, and grow out a cooler stache.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Also this should clear up some confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

... when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Not even the most egregious accusations against Brown coincide with this standard.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, it was common to the witness accounts that were available.

OK. I haven't really followed it all that much, what with the Cardinals battling for first place and football season kicking off tomorrow.

 

[Giordano]

Sure a cop can shoot a fleeing violent suspect.The justification is to protect you and me.

Depending on what happened in the car, (assault on a peace officer) and whether the officer had good cause to believe Brown had just committed a strong arm robbery, it may be open season on Mike Browns.

Nope, not in most places in the USA at least. Only if the fleeing suspect threatens imminent harm to bystanders (i.e. waves around a lethal weapon). A prior assault, or even a prior murder, or even having a weapon that the suspect did not show signs of using, would not allow an officer to shoot a fleeing suspect.

Also, in most places, you are allowed to shoot them to neutralize the threat; you are not allowed to try to kill them. Any use of multiple shots would need to demonstrate that the first shoots did not remove the threat.

It would never be open season on Mr. Brown unless he was actively threatening, and able, to harm the officer or bystanders.

 

[GWCarver]

One would think the police shooting someone in the back would be significant, but in Memphis last year that wasn't the case.

Around ten p.m. on Jan. 17, Steven Askew, an African-American citizen with no police record, was sleeping in his car in an apartment parking lot waiting for his girlfriend to come home. Two white cops were responding to a loud music complaint when they spotted him dozing with a pistol on the seat next to him. He had a Tennessee pistol permit, as do around 26,000 other residents of Shelby County, so it was entirely legal. The cops said they had approached to check on his welfare, knocked on his window and woke him up, he noticed their presence, they began giving him verbal commands, he grabbed his gun and pointed at them, and they were forced to defend themselves.

The subsequent investigation showed the officers had fired 22 times through the rear or back windows - I don't remember which - and Steven was hit 9 times, once in each arm, once in the neck, and 6 times in the back. Steven's gun had not been fired, and about five months after his death it came out that he was found to have died with a cigar in his right hand. He was right-handed. The cops walked and are back on duty.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Woomp, there it is!

And Brown had committed not one, but at least two:

1.) Felony strong arm robbery on clerk
2.) Felony assault, battery, and attempted murder on the officer himself

 

[Giordano]

How can that be?

It is the law in the USA, as others here have detailed above

Given the presumption of innocence in the USA, I don't know of any other way of doing it without the police officer making a snap decision of guilt and the punishment, possibly death.

 

[332nd]

One would think the police shooting someone in the back would be significant, but in Memphis last year that wasn't the case.

Around ten p.m. on Jan. 17, Steven Askew, an African-American citizen with no police record, was sleeping in his car in an apartment parking lot waiting for his girlfriend to come home. Two white cops were responding to a loud music complaint when they spotted him dozing with a pistol on the seat next to him. He had a Tennessee pistol permit, as do around 26,000 other residents of Shelby County, so it was entirely legal. The cops said they had approached to check on his welfare, knocked on his window and woke him up, he noticed their presence, they began giving him verbal commands, he grabbed his gun and pointed at them, and they were forced to defend themselves.

The subsequent investigation showed the officers had fired 22 times through the rear or back windows - I don't remember which - and Steven was hit 9 times, once in each arm, once in the neck, and 6 times in the back. Steven's gun had not been fired, and about five months after his death it came out that he was found to have died with a cigar in his right hand. He was right-handed. The cops walked and are back on duty.

Maybe I missed something, what does his being right handed have to do with anything?

 

[casebro]

This link form post 443 does give a time line:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_52c40b84-ad90-5f9a-973c-70d628d0be04.html

"Jackson described events before the shooting on Saturday, saying Wilson was at a sick call from 11:48 a.m. to about noon. An ambulance was also at that scene.

At 11:51 a.m. a 911 caller reported a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store, Jackson said. He did not name the store. A brief description went out a minute later.

A different officer went to the convenience store and a more detailed description went out a short time later. The robbery suspect was said to be heading toward the QuikTrip in Ferguson.

Wilson left the sick call and encountered Michael Brown at 12:01 p.m. Sometime between then and 12:04 p.m., when a second officer arrived at the scene, Brown was fatally shot by Wilson on Canfield."

Seems to me Wilson must have called for back up, and checked in, if they know what time he encountered Brown. Which makes me think he did suspect him of being the strong arm robbery suspect.

When Wilson reversed the car, Brown figured he had been ID'd, and got defensive, slamming the car door on the officer?

 

[Giordano]

Please see my reply to LTC8K6. Personally, I would rather not have a cop have to make the decision to shoot me or not simply if I flee, both for my sake and the cop's.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is Johnson vulnerable to be taken in as a material witness or accomplice to the robbery, or more?

They will want to squeeze him with the robbery to get him to tell the truth about Brown.

 

[Giz]

An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.[/I]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It isn't necessarily clear that (and unarmed, retreating) Brown would satisfy the condition of "significant and serious threat".

There is a potential (warning: wild speculation follows) that initial close-range shots may have been justified but then later long-range shots were not strictly necessary nor justified and were fired due to anger and adrenaline.

Hopefully our understanding will continue to evolve.

About the only thing known for sure is that the local/regional police don't do non-confrontational crowd control very well.

 

[Kaosium]

OK. I haven't really followed it all that much, what with the Cardinals battling for first place and football season kicking off tomorrow.

You're rooting for the Cardinals? They always win. I'm hoping this will be the Brewers year!

Incidentally, can you imagine the MPD confronting a robbery suspect with one car that stops in the middle of the street? That may be how they do it in Ferguson, but it just seems odd to me. They like back-up here even for traffic stops.

 

[William Parcher]

The gunshot in the car may not have been the cop shooting at Brown but instead an unintentional firing during a tussle. The cop may have had the gun in hand when he first intended to apprehend Brown. IE: approach the robbery suspect with gun already drawn.

Then Brown may have fled with the cop chasing him (gun in hand) and reaching him 35 feet from the car. Brown may have then tussled with the cop and tried to get his gun. Then he is intentionally shot in self-defense in a fight for the gun.

This is speculation.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Actually:

1. I have no reason to believe the comments attributed to the officer that Mr. Brown looked like a robbery suspect, particularly given the facts about the shooting already appear to contradict what the officer has said about it (location of the body, for example). Also, of course, the officer may never have said this to begin with.

2. Even if the officer was correct about Brown looking like a description of the robbery suspect, the officer has the right to stop and query him (even to arrest him) but he, the officer, has to presume that Mr. Brown is innocent and is so until convicted in a court of law.

3. Even if Mr. Brown was guilty of the robbery (and there is zero evidence of that) then the officer had no right to shoot a fleeing individual. Even a convicted one. The officer only can use deadly force if he believes that his life, or that of another person, is in direct and imminent danger. Even if Ms. Brown wrestled for the gun (and there is some testimony that he did not), once he stopped and ran the officer could not shoot him.

4. I find it interesting that some people are willing to assume certain facts that are at best very weak rumors. I don't know the facts, except Mr. Brown appears to have been quite a distance from the officer when he was shot, that he was shot multiple times, and that he was unarmed. I think most sides agree with these facts. There are some testimonies that he was holding his hands up at the time he was shot, but I am willing to wait to see if that was true, too. But even looking at the agreed on facts, the shooting looks indefensible whatever else might be established. And the subsequent actions by the local police don't enhance my confidence in them.

You may want to do some further reading regarding your understanding of:

1) The facts of the case

2) The concept of "zero"