Michael Brown Shooting

[Skeptical Greg]

Kind of like releasing the video and marijuana report?

But I don't suppose you understand why Wilson's record is relevant.

What record are you referring to?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Except "Josie's" account appears to be lifted/and or based off a fake Facebook post.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...book_Page_-_See_Updated_Timeline_Below#rss-sm

Well well well, isn't that interesting. So we don't even know if Wilson is claiming Brown was charging at him.

Of course if Wilson really hasn't given his account of what happened to the county investigator he'll surely make his story fit these rumors. He has to explain how the shots entered into the top of Brown's head.

I do hope that turns out to be false information that Wilson hasn't submitted his story yet. Hopefully it has to do with what the county released, not what the county actually has.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...and various media have reported that sources within the various departments confirm that her third-hand narrative is similar to the first-hand narrative Wilson provided police.

Probably the same sources that claim Wilson was beaten nearly unconscious and suffered a facial fracture.

 

[Distracted1]

Kind of like releasing the video and marijuana report?

But I don't suppose you understand why Wilson's record is relevant.

Just to be clear,
Mr. Browns' actions that day, and the contents of his bloodstream are character assassinations, but Officer Wilson's record is relavent ?

Please explain how officer Wilson's record is pertinent to a determination of justifiable or not in a way that does not also perfectly demonstrate how germane the surveillance video of Mr. Brown is as well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....terrified local residents.

The ones that all came out in Brown's defense right after the shooting? It must have been such a relief to them to know one more thug was gone.


You guys are on a roll.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

link


link

One of them is "Josie". However, Michael Brady confirms as well, at the same link:

I understand wanting links, but you could have just googled the phrases, or searched through the thread here and found them. No need for the hand holding, but whatever, there they are.

"Josie" was a fake, see the link upstream.

As for the tussle at the car window, none of the witnesses deny that.

 

[Distracted1]

The ones that all came out in Brown's defense right after the shooting? It must have been such a relief to them to know one more thug was gone.


You guys are on a roll.

Of course, it is very unlikely that the shopkeeper, or other shoppers ,at the Ferguson market lived in that neighborhood.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What record are you referring to?

Fired from Jennings police department and reports from people who he harassed.

Given the department turned out to only keep records of disciplinary action and not of any charges of excessive use of force, we have to include witnesses because the "record" you are no doubt referring to is kept whitewashed.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Are you sure he was fired?

People?

Being accurate doesn't seem to matter when you are hyperboling...

 

[plague311]

Fired from Jennings police department and reports from people who he harassed.

Given the department turned out to only keep records of disciplinary action and not of any charges of excessive use of force, we have to include witnesses because the "record" you are no doubt referring to is kept whitewashed.

Any evidence to prove the hilited part? Interesting to know that you take that random CNN girl's word, after she's provided no evidence, or even way to prove her story is true, but you discredit Wilson at every chance you can. EVERYONE got fired from the police department, why do you imply that it was just Wilson that got fired? I understand that Josie was a third hand, that's why I included that another person confirmed they fought at the window. You had no reason to say "no one is denying that" because if you would have taken time to read, you would have noticed someone WAS in denial. The individual I specifically quoted, and was replying too. If you're going to throw out a barrage of word salad than at least pay attention to who said what, and when. Otherwise you're just adding to an already confusing, fast moving thread. Thanks.

 

[casebro]

Here is one scenario that has a good chance of making it thought the courts:

Brown was shot at as a fleeing felon, and killed when the officer thought Brown was attacking the officer.

Poll or Pool, which do you think we should start? Or both?

 

[applecorped]

Brown was shot at as a fleeing felon, and killed when the officer thought Brown was attacking the officer.

Poll or Pool, which do you think we should start? Or both?

Neither.

 

[Cylinder]

Here's Missouri's standard jury instruction for use of force to effect arrest:

306.14 JUSTIFICATION: USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

PART A–GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

One of the issues (as to Count _____) (in this case) is whether the use of force by the defendant against [name of victim] was lawful. In this state, the use of force (including the use of deadly force) by a law enforcement officer in making an arrest or in preventing escape after arrest is lawful in certain situations.

A law enforcement officer can lawfully use force to make an arrest or to prevent escape if he is making a lawful arrest or an arrest which he reasonably believes to be lawful. An arrest is lawful if the officer (reasonably believes that the person being arrested (has committed) (or) (is committing) a crime) (is executing an arrest warrant which he believes to be valid).

In making a lawful arrest or preventing escape after such an arrest, a law enforcement officer is entitled to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.

A law enforcement officer in making an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by the person being arrested.

But in making an arrest or preventing escape, a law enforcement officer is not entitled to use deadly force, that is, force which he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes that the person being arrested is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or that the person may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay (emphasis added).

And, even then, a law enforcement officer may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes the use of such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.

PART B–SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

On the issue of use of force by a law enforcement officer (as to Count _____), you are instructed as follows:

First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer (making) (or) (attempting to make) a lawful arrest (or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest) or [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and

Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay) [emphasis added], and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.
The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty (under Count ____).

As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where Wilson is justified in using lethal force to effect the arrest but not a self-defense justification.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

EVERYONE got fired from the police department, why do you imply that it was just Wilson that got fired?

When a company has been dissolved, do we typically refer to the now, out of work employees, as having been ' fired ' ?

Saying Wilson was fired, is just another attempt by Ginger to demonize him...

It's really pathetic, since the media at large has had plenty of time dig up any dirt that might be out there, and we would have heard of it by now...

The best we have is that he ( supposedly ) told someone to ' shut the - up .. ', as if that is never appropriate..

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

When a company has been dissolved, do we typically refer to the now, out of work employees, as having been ' fired ' ?

Saying Wilson was fired, is just another attempt by Ginger to demonize him...

It's really pathetic, since the media at large has had plenty of time dig up any dirt that might be out there, and we would have heard of it by now...

The best we have is that he ( supposedly ) told someone to ' shut the - up .. ', as if that is never appropriate..

I'm sure the Gospel Of St. Michael uses the term "fired". Stop attacking other people's beliefs.

 

[a_unique_person]

Nobody has said it does, you're arguing against nobody here.

The officer fired for some reason. Whether it was a good reason remains to be seen.

I was quoting somebody who as quoting somebody.

Originally Posted by George152
Unarmed black youth shot and killed for walking down the center of a street.

Or robbing a store. Take your pick.

 

[Distracted1]

Here's Missouri's standard jury instruction for use of force to effect arrest:



It's hard to imagine a scenario where Wilson is justified in using lethal force to effect the arrest but not a self-defense justification.

The paragraph after the one you highlighted is the one more likely to re-ignite the powder keg IMO

 

[Cain]

Oh come on, seriously. You've chewed multiple people out on in this thread for not being skeptical of events. An unidentified woman tells a story that can't be backed up about a police officer that recently got in trouble and that doesn't throw up ANY warning signs to you? I don't normally have issue, but that is the opposite of skepticism. She's going to be arrested for pouring milk in her eyes? There can't even be a law against that, unless she refuses to pay for the milk. Then she goes on to say that her eyes are burning like mad, she can't get them to stop, but she can clearly make out his name tag to remember it and pray to god for revenge? That is beyond stupid and contradicting. Have you ever been maced? This is just laughable.

She would've been able to tell it was Wilson if Wilson had just let her put the milk in her eyes!

 

[Ladewig]

Unarmed black youth shot and killed for walking down the center of a street.
Pretty much anything else is academic

What is your definition of academic?

 

[Kestrel]

The paragraph after the one you highlighted is the one more likely to re-ignite the powder keg IMO

The highlighted part should state that the victim posed a risk of serious injury or death to others. Without that clarification, an officer would be justified using deadly force to prevent a suspect from harming himself.