Michael Brown Shooting

[Distracted1]

Do you not think it was attempted murder?

What I think it was?
Violent and aggressive young man is stopped by police for walking in the street after assaulting a store clerk.
He and his companion ( who was with him, but less ballsy during the robbery ) are told to walk on the sidewalk. Perhaps even told to " get the **** outta the street!" By a policeman doing his job.
Companion complies ( he demonstrated earlier he is not happy about the trouble this is going to cause him by putting cigars back onto counter )
Mr. Brown ( perhaps feeling manly after his great success strong arming a man half his size ) decides to have a go at the officer.
This could have been a split decision, but once he goes for it he must certainly know that he must disarm the officer.
During the attack, the gun comes out, or goes off , wounding Mr. Brown, who attempts to flee.
Officer is not going to let this man get away, so he shoots him.


That is what seems most likely to me at this point, with some variation.

 

[johnny karate]

Your refusal to differentiate between the first violent felony Mr. Brown committed that day, and the second one he committed ( which, according to Johnny Karate can reasonably be looked at as attempted murder ), seems impossible to overcome with logic.

Now all that is left is to prove Michael Brown was in fact attempting to kill this police officer.

You seem to have quite easily made this leap without any corroborative evidence.

Why is that?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I used the QuikTrip to get an idea of where the general neighborhood was. Remember, one of the employees at the store that Brown robbed said he was last seen heading towards the QuikTrip. From there, I looked at nearby sidestreets for Coppercreek, and thus was able to locate where the altercation/shooting took place.

It's a two lane residential street not even wide enough for the SUV to fit in one lane perpendicular. It's not wide enough for parked cars.

Your argument there might have been a lot of cars on that street isn't relevant. Sure, there are lots of apartments, so there could be a lot of cars. Were there? You think they wouldn't have gotten out of the way if cars came?

Give up, there's no evidence they blocked any cars whatsoever. The cop was being a jerk.

 

[johnny karate]

What I think it was?
Violent and aggressive young man is stopped by police for walking in the street after assaulting a store clerk.
He and his companion ( who was with him, but less ballsy during the robbery ) are told to walk on the sidewalk. Perhaps even told to " get the **** outta the street!" By a policeman doing his job.
Companion complies ( he demonstrated earlier he is not happy about the trouble this is going to cause him by putting cigars back onto counter )
Mr. Brown ( perhaps feeling manly after his great success strong arming a man half his size ) decides to have a go at the officer.
This could have been a split decision, but once he goes for it he must certainly know that he must disarm the officer.
During the attack, the gun comes out, or goes off , wounding Mr. Brown, who attempts to flee.
Officer is not going to let this man get away, so he shoots him.


That is what seems most likely to me at this point, with some variation.

Why must he disarm the officer?

 

[Distracted1]

Even if the officer did scuffle with Mr. Brown for a gun, the officer was only allowed to shoot him during the scuffle to prevent Mr. Brown from getting the weapon (solid evidence of this, by the way?). But once Mr. Brown decided to stop scuffling and apparently run away, the officer was no longer allowed to shoot at him. If true, the scuffle was a serious crime and the officer had the right to arrest and charge Mr. Brown at any time thereafter. But not to shoot him after the supposed scuffle.

You keep repeating this without a cite. SkepticGinger posted a ruling that makes it pretty clear that there are times when a fleeing suspect can be shot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Regardless of what Brown was going to do if he gained control of the officer's weapon, I think it's entirely reasonable for the officer to have believed that what he would do is kill him with it.

After he was running away?

I think not.

 

[Distracted1]

Now all that is left is to prove Michael Brown was in fact attempting to kill this police officer.

You seem to have quite easily made this leap without any corroborative evidence.

Why is that?

Actually, you made that leap. The police department stated days ago that Mr.Brown attacked the officer and tried to get his weapon.
You wish to assert that no such attack took place, and that the officer just felt like doin some killin that afternoon. Why is that?

 

[Kaosium]

Regardless of what Brown was going to do if he gained control of the officer's weapon, I think it's entirely reasonable for the officer to have believed that what he would do is kill him with it.

Here's what I don't get: how could Wilson have put himself in a position where he could have lost control of his weapon in view of the circumstances which are known?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Here's what I don't get: how could Wilson have put himself in a position where he could have lost control of his weapon in view of the circumstances which are known?

I thought this exchange on CNN.com was insightful:

"Wow! I can't believe the Chief admitted this. It would be better for the officer's case if he knew Big Mike was a felony suspect. Cops have a lot more lee-way when dealing with a possible felon."

John MrMellow • 6 hours ago
"This is actually a more dangerous situation for the officer because the criminal knows the police would be looking for him but the officer didn't know who he was dealing with…until Brown started fighting with him in his car."

 

[Giordano]

You keep repeating this without a cite. SkepticGinger posted a ruling that makes it pretty clear that there are times when a fleeing suspect can be shot.

And I asked you to quote it, please. My reading of the boldfaced part says the opposite. Please cite the part where you see my interpretation is in error. Thanks.

 

[Giordano]

Actually, you made that leap. The police department stated days ago that Mr.Brown attacked the officer and tried to get his weapon.
You wish to assert that no such attack took place, and that the officer just felt like doin some killin that afternoon. Why is that?

So you do not believe that it was attempted murder?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No matter how many times you use this word, it's still going to be incorrect....

Brown was a shoplifter that ignored the clerk who confronted him.

Let's be realistic here. Pushing the clerk would have resulting in Brown being charged with a felony which would have then resulted in being plea bargained down to a misdemeanor.

My calling it shoplifting is no more biased version of the event than other people's attempts to call barely pushing the store clerk some kind of felonious assault/strong armed robbery with no more than an absurd technicality to justify it.

 

[Distracted1]

Here's what I don't get: how could Wilson have put himself in a position where he could have lost control of his weapon in view of the circumstances which are known?

Doesn't make sense unless he was somewhat relaxed, does it. Or was completely surprised by the attack.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Brown was a shoplifter that ignored the clerk who confronted him.

Let's be realistic here. Pushing the clerk would have resulting in Brown being charged with a felony which would have then resulted in being plea bargained down to a misdemeanor.

My calling it shoplifting is no more biased version of the event than other people's attempts to call barely pushing the store clerk some kind of felonious assault/strong armed robbery with no more than an absurd technicality to justify it.

Can't you just admit you bet on the wrong horse?

 

[Giordano]

You keep repeating this without a cite. SkepticGinger posted a ruling that makes it pretty clear that there are times when a fleeing suspect can be shot.

Just to be clear, I have repeatedly stated that a fleeing suspect can be shot at if he is an imminent risk of serious violent harm to others. Did i ever indicate otherwise or do you think that Mr. Brown fit that description when he was apparently fleeing?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Doesn't make sense unless he was somewhat relaxed, does it. Or was completely surprised by the attack.

Like maybe he thought the interaction would be brief and was about walking in the street, when Brown thought it was about the strong arm robbery.

Oh and let's not forget, what Brown did to the clerk was also assault and battery, was it not? I believe it clearly was per the legal definition. I think it's considered assault even if you just spit on someone. And he grabbed a guy and pushed him into a display rack.

 

[Kaosium]

I thought this exchange on CNN.com was insightful:

Yeah, but the last thing posted on this subject by GW Carver suggests he did know. Either way the conduct of the officer is kinda strange. Either he was making a big deal about walking in the street or he was attempting to apprehend felony suspects in a rather odd manner.

How does the gun come out in your scenario?

 

[johnny karate]

Actually, you made that leap. The police department stated days ago that Mr.Brown attacked the officer and tried to get his weapon.
You wish to assert that no such attack took place, and that the officer just felt like doin some killin that afternoon. Why is that?

I don't recall asserting anything. Between the two of us, asserting things about what happened that we couldn't possibly know seems to be solely your domain.

All I know is someone is dead. And the only evidence presented so far to justify that death is the word of the man who caused it.

As a skeptic, I'm inclined to require some corroborative evidence before I piss on someone's grave. Your standards are apparently lower.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Nope, I said angry cop lost his temper after his authority was challenged. The racism only comes in in that this was probably the nature of the usual relationship between this cop and this neighborhood.

One also has to wonder what kind of bad day the cop was having to treat two young men doing no more than walking in the street instead of the sidewalk the way he did.

And your source for "the way he did" is the deceased criminal's accomplice, yes?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can't you just admit you bet on the wrong horse?

Remember your post when the autopsy report comes out. Already there are 3 eyewitnesses that discredit the horse you bet on. What do you have? A video of a bully stealing a carton of cigarillos.