Michael Brown Shooting

[Giz]

Police chief is on now and has made a very clear statement: The robbery had nothing to do with the initial stop by the cop.

Wilson did not know about the robbery.

But Brown did, so he may have assumed the worst and assaulted the officer.

In any case, that seems secondary to why/when/where the shots were fired.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How about slamming the car/truck door on the officer's head repeatedly?

Really, now you are going to pull a Zimmerman?

I could see that happening.

But really, we have a claim of trying to get the officer's sidearm.

That sounded ridiculous at first.

But now we have a kid who was likely going to jail for felony robbery if he got arrested.

His whole world was going to come crashing down.

Or the cop's is.

 

[dudalb]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...erguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html


It shows an institutional problem, which was backed up by their response to the protests.

Which does not mean that they fakes evidence against Brown...which is where you seem to be going with this story.

I have a very low opinion of the Law Enforcement agencies invovled, but to me the handling of the aftermath of the shootings..which was simply terrible in every regard....and what actually took place during the shootings are two different questions. Even if it was justified shooting, that does not excuse how the local law enforcement handled the aftermath.

 

[Giordano]

Not necessarily. You didn't see the discussion above about this?

I participated in the discussion, didn't you see? But I was referring to the largely agreed on facts in this case, the point of this thread. Do you think that Brown represented an imminent threat of serious violent harm to others once he was fleeing, and thus fit the Supreme Court's requirements for police shootings? If so, why? I don't agree at this point, so I did not include that possible justification in my particular post (although I explained why not in some of my other earlier posts).

 

[newyorkguy]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...erguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html
It shows an institutional problem, which was backed up by their response to the protests.

It's not just bad police conduct it's beyond that. It shows utter contempt for any pretense of treating people fairly or ensuring justice. IMO it indicates the root cause in that incident, and this latest one, is that a cowboy culture apparently permeates the Ferguson MO PD. Both of these incidents appear to be egregious examples of police misconduct, condoned if not encouraged by the police department itself.

And news reports have made that clear: people have been alleging for years that the FPD was violating people's rights, blatantly and systemically. No respect for individual rights; is anyone surprised they had no respect for Freedom of the Press which is Constitutionally protected.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Chief says the robbery and video are unconnected to the shooting. It was only released because the press called for it.

Like I said, a red herring.


Oh, and yes the cigarillos were found on the body, Johnson admitted the theft happened (so I heard right earlier), police are not charging Johnson and feel he did not participate. Seeing the longer version of the video, it does appear to show Johnson putting something on the counter (consistent with returning the cigarillos Brown had handed him).

Now the press is accusing the department of trashing Brown but it looks to me like they were trying not to do that because the robbery really was just coincidental. Of course I'm sure the cop's defense attorney is going to say it goes to support Brown was confrontational.

I don't see it helping. It's the autopsy that will tell us a lot more.

 

[332nd]

Chief says the robbery and video are unconnected to the shooting. It was only released because the press called for it.

Like I said, a red herring.

Source?

 

[Giordano]

I really don't know what the ruling would be on that.

It's also predicated on two things that may not be true at all.

Weren't you just willing to convict Brown of several crimes without knowing a trail ruling and assuming even less established facts?

No, after some of the Florida cases I have no confidence what the actual ruling might be. I am only speaking my judgement.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Keep in mind, part of officer training includes learning how to recognize behavioral signs that the person you just stopped to question over something minor is in fact worried you've stopped him for something major.

This is why they run peoples' names for warrants, run license plate numbers to see if the vehicle is stolen, etc. The initial stop may have had nothing to do with those things, but good police work is noticing nervousness and a level of combativeness/defensiveness which seems out of place given the context, and sniffing for more info.

Tell you what, those of you who think the police officer did wrong... how about now that you have a video of the deceased physically assaulting someone a mere hour earlier, you go ahead and trust the officer... who y'know, was actually there... to have had a good reason for shooting Brown?

Whatever the officer may or may not have known about Brown's strong arm robbery, he certainly knew the details of Brown's assault on his own person during the stop in question, and during the very time he shot Brown.

I consider that insight far more important in determining if shooting him was appropriate, than what someone on Huffington Post who carefully avoids exposure to "diversity" while championing it on their keyboard, has to say about it.

Or, if you prefer, continue to subscribe to the fairy tale where police officers decide to just execute black men for no reason whatsoever. Not sure why you'd want to believe that... especially since it isn't true, but knock yourself out.

 

[Distracted1]

It would still be illegal for the cop to shoot at Brown one he tried to surrender, even if the cop's latter bullets were not the fatal ones. It was not just illegal to kill Brown once he was fleeing; it was illegal to shoot at him once he was fleeing.

It seems that much of the information provided suggests that the officer was within the confines of his duty when he shot the violent felon in the act of fleeing his felonious act.

The felony which made it legal was the second violent felony committed by Mr. Brown that day ( the assault of the officer and attempt to seize his gun ) not the first felony the unarmed teen who was to start community college this week committed ( the robbery and assault of the store clerk )

The ironic part, is that it may bode better for the officer if the felon had been shot in the back ( clearly indicating that he was fleeing ) than if he is shot only in the front ( making the claims of his conspirator in the store robbery that he was surrendering more difficult to dispute)

 

[Distracted1]

DP

 

[Cleon]

Conspriacies Theories about how Brown is being framed, and all the evidence fakes coming in 3....2...1....

Here's a question nobody seems to be asking: when the cop stopped Brown on the street, did he even know about the robbery? Everybody's assuming these events are related, and they might not be.

Tthe whole thing about the robbery might be a red herring.

 

[LTC8K6]

Really, now you are going to pull a Zimmerman?

I was just following along with the other odd suggestions of how the officer got injured.

All of that would be wiped out anyway if there was an attempt to get the officer's gun.

I do not see how that could be proven or disproven.

We would only have the officer's word, and unfortunately that generally has more weight so is more likely to be accepted.

 

[LTC8K6]

Here's a question nobody seems to be asking: when the cop stopped Brown on the street, did he even know about the robbery? Everybody's assuming these events are related, and they might not be.

Tthe whole thing about the robbery might be a red herring.

Reports are that he didn't, but the call went out about an in progress robbery. It seems like he had to have heard that on his radio.

Then again, maybe he was out of service at the time?

 

[William Parcher]

Can or would they look for Brown's fingerprints somewhere on the gun?

 

[332nd]

All cops should be wearing bodycams while on duty.

 

[casebro]

A lot of speculation, isn't it?

It does match with the facts we were given. Bruised head fersure, Though I am not sure where the "let go or I'll shoot' came from.

But again, even if one was squashed in a struggle, you cannot shoot that person after the struggle and once he is fleeing.

No, but that first shot while the cop was in his car is covered for sure.

And we have discussed how a cop can shoot a fleeing known felon. And known felon-nes is obvious, Felonious Assault with a car door.

Move along, nothing for Rev Al to carp about here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Source?

It was a police chief press conference just now.

 

[casebro]

I was just following along with the other odd suggestions of how the officer got injured.

All of that would be wiped out anyway if there was an attempt to get the officer's gun.

I do not see how that could be proven or disproven.

We would only have the officer's word, and unfortunately that generally has more weight so is more likely to be accepted.

And like Zimmerman, we have a report of head damage to the officer.

 

[Giordano]

Keep in mind, part of officer training includes learning how to recognize behavioral signs that the person you just stopped to question over something minor is in fact worried you've stopped him for something major.

This is why they run peoples' names for warrants, run license plate numbers to see if the vehicle is stolen, etc. The initial stop may have had nothing to do with those things, but good police work is noticing nervousness and a level of combativeness/defensiveness which seems out of place given the context, and sniffing for more info.

Tell you what, those of you who think the police officer did wrong... how about now that you have a video of the deceased physically assaulting someone a mere hour earlier, you go ahead and trust the officer... who y'know, was actually there... to have had a good reason for shooting Brown?

Whatever the officer may or may not have known about Brown's strong arm robbery, he certainly knew the details of Brown's assault on his own person during the stop in question, and during the very time he shot Brown.

I consider that insight far more important in determining if shooting him was appropriate, than what someone on Huffington Post who carefully avoids exposure to "diversity" while championing it on their keyboard, has to say about it.

Or, if you prefer, continue to subscribe to the fairy tale where police officers decide to just execute black men for no reason whatsoever. Not sure why you'd want to believe that... especially since it isn't true, but knock yourself out.

Again, whatever the officer knew or suspected about the strong arm robbery (when did we convict Brown of that again?) is completely irrelevant to the rules and the law as to if shooting at Brown if he was fleeing was permitted.

I personally think that statistics prove that police in Missouri are more likely to shoot at some races than others, but I suspect that you have some reason to justify your own belief.