Michael Brown Shooting

[Distracted1]

Only I f they are an immediate and direct threat of violent to others at the time of the shooting. What is the evidence that Mr. Brown fits this description?

Do you have a cite for that?

 

[johnny karate]

The police have a duty to apprehend criminals. Sometimes they are expected to use their weapons to stop a violent felon from escaping arrest.
Assaulting an officer and attempting to take his weapon makes one a violent felon.

Before you said it was just assault. Now you've added attempted murder to the mix.

Do you not understand the difference between the two?

 

[Giordano]

Suppose a cop sees a guy shoot another cop. Does the first cop then have the right to shoot the fleeing shooter? Apparently not, according to the logic of your post, because the fleeing shooter has never been convicted of the crime in a court of law, and the presumption must be that the fleeing person is innocent.

Do you begin to see the problem here?

Shooting another cop increases the risk that the shooter will attack and shoot the remaining cop. So this increased risk is recognized by the law as potential justification for the cop using their gun.. But if the shooter drops the gun and runs away, my understanding of the law is that the remaining cop cannot shoot him. I wouldn't count on it in practice, and you may disagree, but I think that is the law.

 

[Distracted1]

How many people who steal cigars also kill cops? Statistically, as you are invoking?

Interesting question. But I think it might bring more light on the issue to determine what percentage of cop killers have assaulted convenience store clerks.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Browns companion apparently had no issue simply stepping to the sidewalk. Yet your pure speculation has the officer acting as the aggressor ?

You use a YouTube video of an aggressive cop, who is not a principle in this event, to stereotype police behavior, meanwhile video clearly depicting the aggressive nature of Mr. Brown on the very day of the incident does nothing to convince you that he is anything other than a " gentle giant ".

It appears to me you have some issues of prejudice with regards to this.

I never called him a gentle giant or even implied that he had a peaceful nature of any sort (in fact, I implied the opposite).

I didn't use the video to slander cops. I used the video to give an example of aggressive behavior being cranked up at the slightest provocation. This was purely fore the sake of illustration. I could have drawn some pictures and made a storyboard, but I didn't have the time.

This shouldn't really be very difficult to figure out. If you find yourself confused in the future, please just ask what I mean rather than going out of your way to infer cruel intentions on my part.

 

[Distracted1]

Before you said it was just assault. Now you've added attempted murder to the mix.

Do you not understand the difference between the two?

Did I? How so?

 

[William Parcher]

Some people will do anything to excuse police behaviour.

On an Internet forum nobody is really doing anything because it's all just a bunch of words. The world seems to operate as if this forum doesn't even exist or that it has no control of what goes on.

 

[Distracted1]

Shooting another cop increases the risk that the shooter will attack and shoot the remaining cop. So this increased risk is recognized by the law as potential justification for the cop using their gun.. But if the shooter drops the gun and runs away, my understanding of the law is that the remaining cop cannot shoot him. I wouldn't count on it in practice, and you may disagree, but I think that is the law.

I hope our justice system isn't as screwed up as you are asserting.

Commit whatever crime you want, as long as you can outrun the police you are good.

 

[Distracted1]

On an Internet forum nobody is really doing anything because it's all just a bunch of words. The world seems to operate as if this forum doesn't even exist or that it has no control of what goes on.

Bastards!

 

[tsig]

Is there a third choice: that the police do their job as we ask, and don't disappear?

It's always black and white.

We kill the perps at the scene or you're soft on crime.

The cops are always right or society collapses.

 

[Kaosium]

The police have a duty to apprehend criminals. Sometimes they are expected to use their weapons to stop a violent felon from escaping arrest.
Assaulting an officer and attempting to take his weapon makes one a violent felon.

How does the gun come out, and why?

 

[johnny karate]

Did I? How so?

Like this:

Assaulting an officer and attempting to take his weapon makes one a violent felon.

See, punching someone in the face is assault.

Punching someone in the face and then trying to shoot them is attempted murder.

So I take it you believe Brown was in the act of attempted murder as opposed to merely assault, yes?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They also have an obligation to apprehend fleeing felons.
This is not about self defense, it is about policing.

You have evidence that includes shooting at unarmed suspects who are fleeing?

Relative SCOTUS Ruling

“The federal courts are very clear that there are times and places where officers are allowed to shoot people in the back when they are running away, even if they are unarmed,” said David Klinger, a criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and expert on police shootings.
Klinger, a former police officer, pointed to the 1985 U.S Supreme Court case Tennessee vs. Garner.

He was 15 years old. Police found $10 and a purse on his body.

Hymon was not charged. The MPD said the shooting fell under the department's policy, which followed a Tennessee law stating "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

Attorneys for Garner's father filed a civil rights suit in 1975, alleging that Hymon had violated the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments in the shooting. A federal district court disagreed.

But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision on grounds of violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, ruling that the statute was a constitutional "seizure" only when the use of deadly force was reasonable. The court said it wasn't reasonable in this instance because of the relatively minor nature of the felony. In 1985, the Supreme Court agreed with the appeal court's reversal.

Justice Byron White wrote for the 6-3 majority in the Garner ruling, stating:
“This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and 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.
The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect’s fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment. Against these interests are ranged governmental interests in effective law enforcement [… ] we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects.

Here's more of White for the majority:

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.

What kind of judgement does an officer have when resisting arrest and pushing a store clerk while shoplifting cigarillos is concluded to be a dangerous felon.

I notice the use of "fleeing felon" is batted around here clearly to make that scary black kid seem dangerous.

 

[Lerxst]

He wasn't shot in front of the Quicktrip.

Look at the friggin pictures of the body in the street, it's a narrow 2-lane residential street. There is no evidence any traffic was blocked.

The QuikTrip is only mentioned here as a way to show how the poster found the street where Brown was killed. This is the QuikTrip that was burned down however, and I think the poster makes a valid point that this road is not a quiet street that sees no traffic. Additionally, we would not expect to see any traffic when the photos were taken.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Suppose a cop sees a guy shoot another cop. Does the first cop then have the right to shoot the fleeing shooter? Apparently not, according to the logic of your post, because the fleeing shooter has never been convicted of the crime in a court of law, and the presumption must be that the fleeing person is innocent.

Do you begin to see the problem here?

Right, it's so brave how you fight those straw men. A suspect fleeing a shooting is definitely the same as a kid who pushed a store clerk when shoplifting and refused to obey a cop then resisted arrest. Oh my what a scary black kid.

 

[Kaosium]

There was no connection between the robbery and the shooting.

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Yes there is, regardless of whether the officer was aware of it or not, and there's contradictory information about that still.

For one thing it says something about Michael Brown's state of mind, as well as Dorian Johnson's and the latter's willingness to be forthcoming with the whole truth. Regardless of whether the police knew those two were involved (and they did almost immediately) Dorian Johnson can't know that and gave the impression this was only about the jaywalking, instead of the grab and go with a little physical intimidation to get out the door which had happened ten minutes before. Ten minutes.

 

[Lerxst]

You have evidence that includes shooting at unarmed suspects who are fleeing?

Relative SCOTUS Ruling


What kind of judgement does an officer have when resisting arrest and pushing a store clerk while shoplifting cigarillos is concluded to be a dangerous felon.

I notice the use of "fleeing felon" is batted around here clearly to make that scary black kid seem dangerous.

If Brown did assault the officer, then fleeing felon would be fairly accurate. I don't see any reasonable person suggesting that Brown was shot because he was resisting arrest as a robbery suspect. Wilson claims Brown assaulted him and tried to get at his weapon. Johnson states that Brown never did that. Someone's not telling the truth.

At this point though people seem to be choosing sides based on who they believe, not on any real evidence one way or the other.

 

[Matthew Cline]

As in, 5'2" female alone who just got pulled over for drunk driving slaps 6'1" male cop across the face while generally being non-compliant and rowdy? I don't think he should bust out his sidearm and blow her away. I'd have issues with him doing that. It isn't necessary, at all.

"Issues"? You'd have "issues" with him doing that? Not "that would be murder and he should be thrown into prison"?

 

[Distracted1]

Like this:


See, punching someone in the face is assault.

Punching someone in the face and then trying to shoot them is attempted murder.

So I take it you believe Brown was in the act of attempted murder as opposed to merely assault, yes?

It would be up to a DA to decide if it was attempted murder. The policeman claimed that Brown attacked him and went for his gun, which makes a great deal of sense.

If you attacked someone you knew to be armed, would you not immediately try to get the gun from him? If that qualifies as attempted murder in your book then yes, attempted murder it is.

Either way it is a felony, and a violent one.

 

[Brainster]

Shooting another cop increases the risk that the shooter will attack and shoot the remaining cop. So this increased risk is recognized by the law as potential justification for the cop using their gun.. But if the shooter drops the gun and runs away, my understanding of the law is that the remaining cop cannot shoot him. I wouldn't count on it in practice, and you may disagree, but I think that is the law.

There are two basic issues here. First, how serious is the crime that the person fleeing is accused of. If the accusation is strong-arm robbery, then, yes, shooting him for fleeing is excessive force. On the other hand if the accusation is attempting to take a police officer's gun, which could certainly be considered attempted murder, then the crime is very serious indeed.

The other issue is whether the police officer believes that the person fleeing is an imminent danger to himself or others. In this instance I do not believe that there is any evidence that Brown was an imminent danger, assuming that it is correct that he was running away from the cop. Obviously we shall have to wait to see whether there were entrance wounds in Brown's back.