MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #12

[Boytwnmom]

I doubt this attempt will be successful. It's a fairly poorly argued brief with a lot about the crowds and protestors and court of public opinion. Much less about the law. One of the cases cited is somewhat on point in one sense but does not give the plaintiff here standing to receive the records.

In the Smith v Harolds Supermarket case, a mother brought a civil suit agaimst the supermarket for the wrongful death of her son. She won but was awarded only 30k which I guess she felt insufficient so she appealed. One basis was that her son's juvenile record was introduced at trial. He had been shoplifting cigarettes and was taken into custody of a sort by supermarket employees and he was injured and died 19 days later. During the trial there was an argument about the decedents juvenile records which the defendant supermarket won:

During the pre-trial period, defendants sought access to records and other evidentiary matters related to the juvenile court history of Halstead, both from a foreign jurisdiction (Illinois) and the Missouri juvenile system. Dispute over the admissibility of this evidence led to the issuance of an order by the circuit court denying defendants access to the juvenile records of Halstead. In response to this order, defendants sought from this court an alternative Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to permit defendants access to the juvenile records. In response to the alternative writ of this court, the trial court, on April 5, 1982 and by order, granted defendants access to the records.

Plaintiff's first challenge is directed to the admission of the petition, entry of appearance, and the order of the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois (juvenile division) regarding the juvenile proceeding in People v. William Halstead. The record and order of the Illinois court revealed that William Halstead had been adjudged delinquent and was ordered placed on probation. When plaintiff and William Halstead moved to Missouri, William was placed under the supervision of the Missouri Division of Youth Services. As a result of orders of the Missouri courts (juvenile), William Halstead was twice placed in custody at the Boys Training School, Booneville, Missouri.

At trial the mother had an economist testify about her son's earnig potential. He testified that he did not take into account the incarceration or the effect of a criminal record on future employment. These were things the defendant brought out on cross.

The question on appeal was:

Thus, this court is still faced with providing an answer to the question of whether § 211.271(3) prohibits the use of juvenile records and related evidentiary
[685 S.W.2d 863] matters in cases where the juvenile is deceased and the cause of action involves or interrelates to the pecuniary value of the juvenile.

The holding in the case was entirely dependent on the nature of the civil case, which was to place a pecuniary value on the deceased juvenile's life:

What plaintiff is suggesting in the instant case is that she should be afforded the same protection as a juvenile in her recovery of damages which rest at least in part upon the pecuniary value of the juvenile (i.e., her son in this case). This court can neither agree with nor adopt such a suggestion. While the rationale for rejecting plaintiff's suggestion is more evident in a case, such as the instant case, wherein the juvenile is deceased, it appears to this court that plaintiff's suggestion should likewise be rejected in any and all cases wherein the claim of another rests either in part or in toto upon the pecuniary value of the juvenile. If the suggestion of plaintiff was accepted, a clear analysis of the pecuniary value of a juvenile relative to another party's claim based thereon could never occur.

This court concludes that the legislative intent, and hence the purpose of § 211.271(3) is to safeguard the best interest of the juvenile, by prohibiting the use of records and reports in all cases except juvenile proceedings, exclusively, and that § 211.271(3) has no application in any case wherein another person seeks recovery under any claim which rests in part or in toto upon the pecuniary value of the juvenile.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19841544685SW2d859_11485.xml/SMITH%20v.%20HAROLD%27S%20SUPERMARKET,%20INC.

I don't see where this case leads to any right of a journalist to obtain a juvenile decendents records in a case like this. That is not to say that other arguments could not be made by parties invovled in furture criminal or civil court proceedings. But this does not suggest journalists or the public have any legitimate interest in viewing the decedents juvenile records.

Retweeted by KMOX St. Louis News
​

​

​

Brian Kelly ‏@Brpkelly 3m
Law professor says suit aimed at releasing #MichaelBrown's juvenile records (if any) won't work. Story at http://KMOX.com/listen .
​

​

​

 

[Truthy]

All the chatter about the store owner/clerk is kinda meaningless to me b/c even if he didn't call it in, there was an incident report. He clearly didn't say to the cop who showed up, "oh no officer there's noting wrong, you shouldn't have come."

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/236907978

And when it was called in that day, it was "shoplifting" - larceny. There was no fleeing felon until they renamed it "strong arm robbery" much later.

 

[reedus23]

What does Missouri law provide on police use of deadly force?
Missouri law gives police officers broad power to use force to make an arrest or prevent a felon’s escape. It states: “A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only …. when he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested (a) has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or (b) is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or (c) may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-grand-jury-how-will-it-work-ferguson-case



Part A, B and C is not required. Part A OR B OR C is the three requirements individually that allows them to use deadly force.

So if MB assaulted OW and then tried to flee he had a right by MO law to shoot the suspect in order to subdue/apprehend or use deadly force when trying to arrest him. IMO And if MB continued to come toward OW after he had been shot OW certainly had a right to defend himself from being possibly beaten and kicked to death this time instead of just receiving a serious eye injury which he had already received from this very same suspect.

IMO[/B]

It is not just a or b or c. Along with a or b or c, the cop must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest. Unless I'm reading that wrong. If I'm reading that right, it is completely irrelevant what happened earlier. Irrelevant what happened at the store. Irrelevant what happened at the car. What is important is what is going on at the time the fatal shot is fired. You can have the most violent piece of trash who just committed a strong arm robbery and followed that up by hitting a cop upside his head with a baseball bat. But, if at the time that cops gun is pulled, that piece of trash had surrendered himself to arrest, the cop might still shoot him, but it won't be justified because it was no longer immediately necessary to effect the arrest. That's why I still believe that what is important is what happened 35 feet from that cop's car. Did MB surrender himself or did he charge the officer?

 

[EvilSoup]

I guess it is just semantics and certainly not trying to argue the point one way or the other. But I am just saying that they felt it could "quite easily" be a hoax, but they really didn't come across as definitive one way or the other. I was just trying to say that they didn't just completely discredit it. They actually ended up saying...well...we will see. I'm saying that I think it's probably real, and could have value, but certainly isn't necessarily the smoking gun some were initially claiming it to be.

I agree. I could "quite easily" be pregnant, but I assure you I am not. :dance:anic:

 

[reedus23]

On one of our threads here, I read that OW weighs 175#. May be so, may not. At any rate, there is a minimum height and weight set for police officers, or so I've heard before. If this is so, he is at least the minimum or more. And further, if this is so ... what are the requirements in Ferguson?

I would doubt Ferguson has any such requirements. They aren't exactly in a position to be choosy. Heck, they hired 2 cops that came from departments where they were either getting sued or had Internal Affairs finding merit to a complaint, each for beating 12 year olds.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I would doubt Ferguson has any such requirements. They aren't exactly in a position to be choosy. Heck, they hired 2 cops that came from departments where they were either getting sued or had Internal Affairs finding merit to a complaint, each for beating 12 year olds.

I would need a link for all of those allegations you mention above.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

It is not just a or b or c. Along with a or b or c, the cop must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest. Unless I'm reading that wrong. If I'm reading that right, it is completely irrelevant what happened earlier. Irrelevant what happened at the store. Irrelevant what happened at the car. What is important is what is going on at the time the fatal shot is fired. You can have the most violent piece of trash who just committed a strong arm robbery and followed that up by hitting a cop upside his head with a baseball bat. But, if at the time that cops gun is pulled, that piece of trash had surrendered himself to arrest, the cop might still shoot him, but it won't be justified because it was no longer immediately necessary to effect the arrest. That's why I still believe that what is important is what happened 35 feet from that cop's car. Did MB surrender himself or did he charge the officer?

The question is .....was Officer Wilson in reasonable fear for his life when he pulled the trigger.

The answer is undoubtably yes.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

A shooting death of a 17 year old with 100 people present...

No one talking....
Vigil Held For Teen Killed On North Philadelphia Basketball Court
http://wtxf.m0bl.net/r/1z6i78

This is a huge huge part of the problem. IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reedus23]

If that audio tape is valid, it is curious that there is no recording of any voices outside. No one yells FREEZE and no one yells OKAY DONT SHOOT DONT SHOOT....

I'd be curious as to where this guy was actually at during that time. Frankly, while the gunshots are clear, they don't sound like they were extremely close. But then again, I'm not a gun person and don't hear them shot very often. Maybe someone more familiar with guns could weigh in. My impression from listening was as if the shots came from a house or two up in which case, I would doubt that it would pick up any words said.

 

[reedus23]

Hope the game was a good one! What sport?

Thanks. No game. Rain came right at game time. Soccer.

 

[Boytwnmom]

I assume they can screen for certain drugs but do they only screen for illegal drugs? Synthetic pot & NYQUIL and whatever else kids use to lace their pot are legal. So do they show up in a screen? I know when reading about bizarre behavior it's often associated with substances other than "plain old pot". I am interested in knowing if there is any kind of chemical involved here, beyond pot. I know they said he had pot in his system but not the THC levels or whether there was anything else. So, no way to know right now if he was high at the time or had just been high the night before.

Not if it was dipped in Nyquil and if it was stuffed into a cigarillo. Or not if it was mixed with "spice" or salvia.

Just sayin'

 

[katydid23]

There have been some updates to the transcript:

CNN TONIGHT

An American Jihadist; FBI Analyzing Audio Recording of Brown Shooting

Aired August 26, 2014 - 22:00 ET

HOSTIN: Alex, I mean, you know, that may be the case, but you have so many eyewitnesses, quite frankly, that...

LEMON: Sunny, can I say this?

HOSTIN: ... are not saying that. They're saying something that's different.

LEMON: Well, the eyewitnesses -- those are the eyewitnesses -- eyewitnesses, excuse me, we know of.

FERRER: Of course.

LEMON: Because some of the eyewitnesses that we are hearing from sources, there are at least a handful or maybe a dozen eyewitnesses who are corroborating the police officer's side of the story, but they don't want to be part of the media spectacle. They don't want their names out there.

FERRER: That is true. And I think that this...

HOSTIN: Well, I haven't -- I haven't heard from any witnesses like that. Perhaps other people have. But, again, from what we know at this point, I think that the pause in the shots, quite frankly, corroborate a lot of the evidence or depictions, at least at this point.

FERRER: I totally -- I totally disagree. I totally disagree.

JOHNSON: Yes, I'm with Alex.

FERRER: The pause in the shooting is going to be spun by both sides.

People form their opinions originally based on their own life perceptions. The people who feel this was an unjustified shooting are going to say that pause gave the officer time to premeditate the shooting. The people who feel it's a justified shooting are going to say he shot him and stopped, and since he was still coming, he shot some more.

And the reality is that the harm is not that people form their opinions immediately. The harm is that people formed fixed opinions. And then when facts like this come in, they're not willing to change their mind. They're willing to form it into their story or say, "Oh, it's not credible; it's not believable." That's the problem. JOHNSON: And it's a reasonable officer too. I mean, it's a

reasonable person standard. So it comes from the officer's testimony. And the officer, unfortunately, is the only person who's alive between the two of them.

LEMON: But there are reports out there, as well.

FERRER: No, we're going to have other forensics. We're going to have other forensics, and we're going to have other witnesses. We just have to wait for all that to come in.

And I'm not a big believer that the police should be letting out all their evidence. Because when they do, this is why police say, "An investigation is pending. We can't comment." Because when they let out the evidence they have, people come out of the woodworks with stories that fit into that evidence.

HOSTIN: But let's...

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Stand by. Hold that thought. We'll get into it. I'm going to let you guys -- I'm going to let you finish. But there are, you know, there are reports that people are fitting their testimony to what they hear witnesses on television saying. We're going to talk about that.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/26/cnnt.01.html

BBM

THANK YOU so much for finding this and posting it. I watched that segment and I was so impressed by Judge Alex. He is like the voice of reason, imo.

And I have never known him to go off the deep end and say things that are far-fetched. He is not like that from what I have seen. So it makes me believe that there is in fact a small group of credible witnesses who saw MB blindside OW and shove him back in the car, etc. jmo :cow:

 

[reedus23]

It certainly did not hold that juvenile court records become public once the juvenile has died. It was about using parts of a juvenile court record that consisted of statements by an adult who was trying to keep the records sealed:



In the case cited, the parents were being prosecuted for child abuse/endangerment and were arguing that evidence, consisting of prior incriminating statements/admissions contained in a prior juvenile case record, should remain sealed. The court found that statements of people other than the juvenile are not protected and can thus be used against them:



I am not really seeing the applicability here. But, hey, people can argue whatever they want.

I guess they can argue what they want, but I'd hardly call that case on point.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'd be curious as to where this guy was actually at during that time. Frankly, while the gunshots are clear, they don't sound like they were extremely close. But then again, I'm not a gun person and don't hear them shot very often. Maybe someone more familiar with guns could weigh in. My impression from listening was as if the shots came from a house or two up in which case, I would doubt that it would pick up any words said.

Acoustics play a huge part but it's very tricky even for the experts IMO


http://app.forensicmag.com/articles...hot-acoustic-analysis-heating-dont-get-burned


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katydid23]

I assume they can screen for certain drugs but do they only screen for illegal drugs? Synthetic pot & NYQUIL and whatever else kids use to lace their pot are legal. So do they show up in a screen? I know when reading about bizarre behavior it's often associated with substances other than "plain old pot". I am interested in knowing if there is any kind of chemical involved here, beyond pot. I know they said he had pot in his system but not the THC levels or whether there was anything else. So, no way to know right now if he was high at the time or had just been high the night before.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt they screen for NYQuil. It is legal and probably not something they are used to testing for. And maybe that's one reason kids like to use it to get high. They wouldn't flunk a drug test for work or school. :cow:

 

[katydid23]

And when it was called in that day, it was "shoplifting" - larceny. There was no fleeing felon until they renamed it "strong arm robbery" much later.

Sure, because the caller probably just said he stole some cigarillos. But later, upon seeing the actual video of the crime, it was obviously MORE than just shoplifting. Once the perp assaults the employee, then it becomes a felony.

 

[gngr~snap]

I'd be curious as to where this guy was actually at during that time. Frankly, while the gunshots are clear, they don't sound like they were extremely close. But then again, I'm not a gun person and don't hear them shot very often. Maybe someone more familiar with guns could weigh in. My impression from listening was as if the shots came from a house or two up in which case, I would doubt that it would pick up any words said.

He could have been on the back side of the building where MB was shot. One sits kinda at an angle.

All posts are MOO

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://www.myreporter.com/2012/07/why-does-it-take-weeks-for-toxicology-reports/

Interesting...

I was looking for specific information on toxicology at autopsy for "bath salts" and synthetic drugs...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvilSoup]

While the extent of Officer Wilson's injury is unknown we know he sustained a significant injury to his eye enough to make his face swell. If he were hit in the eye wouldn't it be natural for his eye to water immediately. After jumping from the SUV is it possible he was favoring that one eye trying to focus with the good eye and MB took it as a sign to rush him? It certainly would account for the missed shots until he could readjust his aim. Anyone ever get hit in the eye?

I thought LE only said he suffered from facial swelling. Do you have a link with LE confirming damage to OW's eye?

Hope that doesn't get me in trouble. Lol.

 

[EvilSoup]

Thanks. No game. Rain came right at game time. Soccer.

Bummer. And yeah, end of summer. It happens. Anyway congrats to your son for making the team!