MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #15

[TheDuchess]

The worker quoted in the article didn't comment on the shooting being justified or not. This resident did:

Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. “Not quickly,” Walker said. “He did not rush the officer.” Walker, who is distantly related to a Post-Dispatch reporter not involved in this report, said the last shot, into the top of Brown’s head, was from about 4 feet away.

“It wasn’t justified because he didn’t pose no threat to the officer. I don’t understand why he didn’t Tase him if he deemed him to be hostile. He didn’t have no weapon on him. I was confused on why he was shooting his rounds off like that into this individual,” Walker said.

The worker states at the end of his interview with Fox that he didn't think the shooting was justified and would love to hear an explanation of how it could be, so yes, he did state his opinion at the end.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/12/witnes...rown-was-shot/

 

[popsicle]

[h=1]The police body-cam peep show: are you ready to give up your privacy, too?[/h]It’s about time we recorded the cops. But when the camera’s rolling on everybody, can you really root out the bad?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/06/police-body-cam-privacy-recorded-cops

 

[Footwarrior]

Good point - however, in Missouri, a police officer can shoot at a fleeing felon. If MB assaulted OW (as well as reached for his gun) then the shooting at it from behind is justified. Period.

<mod snip> An act may be legal, but still not be right or moral. If Missouri gives law enforcement the unrestricted right to shoot at a fleeing felon or even a suspected felon, that law should also be changed.

A more reasonable standard is to restrict the use of lethal force to situations where the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or severe injury.

 

[Trident]

The worker quoted in the article didn't comment on the shooting being justified or not. This resident did:

Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. &#8220;Not quickly,&#8221; Walker said. &#8220;He did not rush the officer.&#8221; Walker, who is distantly related to a Post-Dispatch reporter not involved in this report, said the last shot, into the top of Brown&#8217;s head, was from about 4 feet away.

&#8220;It wasn&#8217;t justified because he didn&#8217;t pose no threat to the officer. I don&#8217;t understand why he didn&#8217;t Tase him if he deemed him to be hostile. He didn&#8217;t have no weapon on him. I was confused on why he was shooting his rounds off like that into this individual,&#8221; Walker said.

If MB kept coming and got within 4 feet of Officer Wilson, that shot was justified.

My opinion only

 

[Trident]

<mod snip> An act may be legal, but still not be right or moral. If Missouri gives law enforcement the unrestricted right to shoot at a fleeing felon or even a suspected felon, that law should also be changed.

A more reasonable standard is to restrict the use of lethal force to situations where the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or severe injury.

If you feel the law should be changed, it would be wonderful for you to work toward that end. I have a friend who got a voting law changed in Georgia. Sometimes you can fight city hall, but in order to win, you gotta start the fight.

 

[Elley Mae]

<mod snip> An act may be legal, but still not be right or moral. If Missouri gives law enforcement the unrestricted right to shoot at a fleeing felon or even a suspected felon, that law should also be changed.

A more reasonable standard is to restrict the use of lethal force to situations where the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or severe injury.

<mod snip>

This was hashed out a bit back. The second MB struck OW it was/is legal. Why bring up slavery anyway?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

 

[popsicle]

The worker states at the end of his interview with Fox that he didn't think the shooting was justified and would love to hear an explanation of how it could be, so yes, he did state his opinion at the end.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/12/witnes...rown-was-shot/

Yes, that is the one worker. The worker who gave the interview to the dispatch has never spoken to a reporter and didn't want to be identified.

Both have given their statements to the St. Louis County police and the FBI. One of the men agreed to share his account with a Post-Dispatch reporter on the condition that his name and employer not be used.

The worker, who has not previously spoken with reporters, said he did not see what happened at the officer&#8217;s car &#8212; where Wilson and Brown engaged in an initial struggle and a shot was fired from Wilson&#8217;s gun.

-snip-


He said Brown struck up a rambling, half-hour conversation with his co-worker.

The co-worker could not be reached for comment through his employer. He previously told KTVI (Channel 2) that he had uttered a profanity in frustration after hitting a tree root while digging. Brown heard him and stopped to talk.

 

[TheDuchess]

<mod snip> An act may be legal, but still not be right or moral. If Missouri gives law enforcement the unrestricted right to shoot at a fleeing felon or even a suspected felon, that law should also be changed.

A more reasonable standard is to restrict the use of lethal force to situations where the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or severe injury.

So will this case be decided upon what the law should be or what the law is?

 

[TheDuchess]

Yes, that is the one worker. The worker who gave the interview to the dispatch has never spoken to a reporter and didn't want to be identified.

Both have given their statements to the St. Louis County police and the FBI. One of the men agreed to share his account with a Post-Dispatch reporter on the condition that his name and employer not be used.

The worker, who has not previously spoken with reporters, said he did not see what happened at the officer’s car — where Wilson and Brown engaged in an initial struggle and a shot was fired from Wilson’s gun.

-snip-


He said Brown struck up a rambling, half-hour conversation with his co-worker.

The co-worker could not be reached for comment through his employer. He previously told KTVI (Channel 2) that he had uttered a profanity in frustration after hitting a tree root while digging. Brown heard him and stopped to talk.

Oh wow...thanks for that! I hadn't realized that both of the workers had given interviews.

 

[Footwarrior]

This was hashed out a bit back. The second MB struck OW it was/is legal.

Once Brown has disengaged from Wilson and started to flee, he no longer poses an immediate threat to officer Wilson. If Brown was armed and shooting back at Wilson, the threat would stll exist.

 

[K_Z]

The worker quoted in the article didn't comment on the shooting being justified or not. This resident did:

Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. “Not quickly,” Walker said. “He did not rush the officer.” Walker, who is distantly related to a Post-Dispatch reporter not involved in this report, said the last shot, into the top of Brown’s head, was from about 4 feet away.

“It wasn’t justified because he didn’t pose no threat to the officer. I don’t understand why he didn’t Tase him if he deemed him to be hostile. He didn’t have no weapon on him. I was confused on why he was shooting his rounds off like that into this individual,” Walker said.

Phillip Walker had no way to properly evaluate the situation to determine if MB was a threat to the officer, so if I heard that as a jury member, I would have to discard pretty much all of his testimony. Phillip Walker had no way to know if MB or DJ was armed, or not. It's clear to me Phillip Walker made up his mind about the situation once he "heard" that MB was unarmed, after the fact. IMO. I can believe Phillip Walker was confused, though. That would have been a confusing, frightening situation to come upon. There's a lot of "heresay" and opinion in that quote from PW, IMO, that he would not be permitted to testify to in court, if he were called as a witness. IMO. And I think deposition and cross examination of PW from 2 competent attorneys would be a very difficult situation for PW's words to hold up to what he has claimed in his opinions above. IMO.

 

[Elley Mae]

Once Brown has disengaged from Wilson and started to flee, he no longer poses an immediate threat to officer Wilson. If Brown was armed and shooting back at Wilson, the threat would stll exist.

It doesn't matter, take your problems to the Supremes, they made their decision, it's in my siggie

 

[K_Z]

Once Brown has disengaged from Wilson and started to flee, he no longer poses an immediate threat to officer Wilson. If Brown was armed and shooting back at Wilson, the threat would stll exist.

That's ok if this is just an opinion from a lay person. But the law doesn't agree with this. The Supreme Court has weighed in on this. An officer can shoot at a fleeing suspect. Armed or not.

Oops. Cross posted with Elley Mae. She has the link/ citation handy in post 974 above.

 

[Amber29]

[h=1]Workers who were witnesses provide new perspective on Michael Brown shooting[/h]About a half-hour later, the worker heard a gunshot. Then he saw Brown running away from a police car. Wilson trailed about 10 to 15 feet behind, gun in hand. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker said, Wilson fired another shot at Brown, whose back was turned.

The worker said Brown stumbled and then stopped, put his hands up, turned around and said, “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” He said he told investigators from the St. Louis County police and the FBI that because of the stumble, it seemed to him that Brown had been wounded.

<snip>


Wilson, gun drawn, also stopped about 10 feet in front of Brown, the worker said.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.

Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.

After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...tml?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

These witness statements are absolutely all over the place! I feel if this is how it happened though, OW was justified. You can not advance on an officer that you have just assaulted and his weapon had discharged during that encounter. Even if MBs hands were up, it doesn't matter. He should not have been coming towards the officer if he meant no harm and was attempting to surrender. I can see how ODW would interrupt that as a threat to him.

 

[K_Z]

These witness statements are absolutely all over the place! I feel if this is how it happened though, OW was justified. You can not advance on an officer that you have just assaulted and his weapon had discharged during that encounter. Even if MBs hands were up, it doesn't matter. He should not have been coming towards the officer if he meant no harm and was attempting to surrender. I can see how ODW would interrupt that as a threat to him.

And may I add that OW was not just charged with defending himself! He is a sworn peace officer, charged with protecting and defending all of the OTHER people in the vicinity of dangerous and violent suspect! In a residential community! With little children nearby! This was not an encounter between a private citizen and another citizen. This was an officer/ suspect encounter, not a bar brawl between 2 hotheads. The rules of engagement are VERY different.

 

[TheDuchess]

These witness statements are absolutely all over the place! I feel if this is how it happened though, OW was justified. You can not advance on an officer that you have just assaulted and his weapon had discharged during that encounter. Even if MBs hands were up, it doesn't matter. He should not have been coming towards the officer if he meant no harm and was attempting to surrender. I can see how ODW would interrupt that as a threat to him.

It's the equivalent of saying "yes" and nodding your head "no." Actions speak louder than word. And as I said earlier, the shooting did not take place in a vacuum, as much as everyone would like to ignore that fact.

 

[Elley Mae]

I feel like that some people would like to think that..... Like, I could walk up to a cop in a patrol car and Biotch slap him and then casually walk away. I don't know maybe I'm not understanding what is expected to happen when one does such a think as to disobey an officer and then to get physical w/said officer and then get upset when the officer then proceeds to shoot at you, because of what you have done. Maybe there is a place like that, I would like to know where though. hmmm

Maybe someone could start a business... Like classes on How to interact with Law Enforcement. hmmm

 

[K_Z]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html

Our varying take-aways after reading this or any article reflects the differing ways eye/ear witnesses remember a crime imo. What immediately caught my attention was the landscaper's description of MB's 30 min. conversation as "rambling". I hope MB's complete tox screen clearly suggests why MB made the bad choices he did that day.

ETA: Another important thing to me was the witness saying DW was backing up as he fired some of the shots.

BBM. While I do think that there is a high likelihood that MB has more than marijuana in his toxicology report, I am also concerned about how that could be portrayed to attempt absolve MB of responsibility for whatever substances might be in his system, and deflect more inappropriate blame onto OW. As in OW shot at a "vulnerable and impaired" suspect.

Because based on the deflection for the marijuana positive as "normal behavior for young men" among MB and his circle of friends, the only way to put a positive spin on a positive tox screen is to suggest the owner of the tox screen was "not responsible for his actions" due to impairment.

This generally doesn't hold up in court, because courts view substance abuse as a voluntary act, and still hold impaired people responsible for their crime committed while impaired. (For an example that lead to the death penalty and execution, look up the Karla Faye Tucker case.)

But in the court of public opinion, pity and "faux outrage" can make an "impaired" MB into a more sympathetic victim, further deflecting his rols as a violent suspect, and attempting to paint him as less responsible for his actions. And making OW into more of a "monster" for shooting an "impaired and vulnerable person". Wait for it. IMO.

 

[TheDuchess]

BBM. While I do think that there is a high likelihood that MB has more than marijuana in his toxicology report, I am also concerned about how that could be portrayed to attempt absolve MB of responsibility for whatever substances might be in his system, and deflect more inappropriate blame onto OW. As in OW shot at a "vulnerable and impaired" suspect.

Because based on the deflection for the marijuana positive as "normal behavior for young men" among MB and his circle of friends, the only way to put a positive spin on a positive tox screen is to suggest the owner of the tox screen was "not responsible for his actions" due to impairment.

This generally doesn't hold up in court, because courts view substance abuse as a voluntary act, and still hold impaired people responsible for their crime committed while impaired. (For an example that lead to the death penalty and execution, look up the Karla Faye Tucker case.)

But in the court of public opinion, pity and "faux outrage" can make an "impaired" MB into a more sympathetic victim, further deflecting his rols as a violent suspect, and attempting to paint him as less responsible for his actions. And making OW into more of a "monster" for shooting an "impaired and vulnerable person". Wait for it. IMO.

Ya know...I keep thinking about MBs religious ramblings. I am religious and I get the belief in a power greater than ourselves and in spirituality, etc... But I think there is a fine line between being a person of faith and going to church, praying, preaching the word of God, etc... However, I also believe there is a fine line between acting as a person of faith and acting like a delusional person in an altered-state, as is quite apparent from what the worker stated. We have quotes about MBs talking about seeing angels in the sky at 1:30 in the morning, him talking about having a sense of impending doom or "bad vibes" and apparently partaking in a "rambling" conversation with someone who cussed. We know that MB doesn't have a problem with cussing and even with violent words, based on his lyrics.

So what was going on inside of MBs head that day? We have no indications that what was going on inside of OWs head that day had anything to do with being on drugs, prior instances of racist behavior, etc... I would imagine that the parents from the sick child call will probably describe him as calm, perhaps friendly and I might guess from a commended LEO with a perfectly clean record, likely supportive, comforting and understanding.

But with MB, we have lots of information to support a theory that MB was not "in his right mind" that day. He talked about "bad vibes" and rambled about religion and counseled someone he didn't know about being "chill." Then he went and stole cigars and roughed up the much smaller store owner. Then he didn't listen to OW and apparently assaulted him. We now know he at the bare minimum had pot in his system.

So the totality of these circumstances still leads me to lean much more toward one of the parties not acting "right" and the other party acting pretty much like any other LEO would act given the situation at hand at that moment.

 

[Truthy]

That's ok if this is just an opinion from a lay person. But the law doesn't agree with this. The Supreme Court has weighed in on this. An officer can shoot at a fleeing suspect. Armed or not.

Oops. Cross posted with Elley Mae. She has the link/ citation handy in post 974 above.

I was shocked to find out this is now the case. It was not for most of my brothers career in the NYPD. You had to show they were an immediate danger to the commmunity. Because shooting a hail storm of bullets into a densely populated area endangers the public. So, it was a decison you'd have to weigh heavily for public safety issues. It's distressing to think that matters less these days.