MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
fran said:
Do you have a link to the police chief lying?

What I heard yesterday that someone not connected to LE let another person's name out as the officer involved and the police chief said this was not the officer and that person didn't even work for LE anywhere in that country or whatever.

tia
fran
Click to expand...

Just catching up so apologize if already answered. Not sure I can link right now because I can't listen but it was in an interview I believe from yesterday with Chief Jackson. He was specifically asked about 2 names. One name the reporter I believe only knew of the first name. The second name (the cop involved) the reporter had first and last. Chief responded by saying that the first name doesn't even work for the force they have no "fill in the name" on the force. When he didn't respond to the second name, the reporter followed up with something to the effect of "so what about...". I think that's the reference. Because I'm watching most stuff on local news, not through links, I'll have to search for it.
 
LaLaw2000 said:
This is gut-wrenching. I am stunned to see so much animosity toward LE by the general public.

I do agree that LE could have handled this officer-involved shooting in a much different way. The more or less lack of meaningful communication is/was still no reason for the burning, looting, and violence that took place. It certainly didn't solve anything, IMO.

I was a deputy for 10 years. My late husband was retired LE with 22 years of service. There was a saying that we used to have: "Too many people hate LE until they need them." Now, too many people distrust LE, IMO, but wouldn't hesitate to call them when needed.

We do not know what happened yet. We do not have the whole story. That has been shown by the information that just came out. Either side could have reason to lie at this point. There could have been a struggle for the gun inside the vehicle. We don't know. One thing I do know for sure is that there is never a reason for shooting a person in the back, IMO. I will wait to see if that happened.

This police officer only had 6 years of experience on the force and could have reacted in a way totally outside of his training, but we don't know that. The young guy (Brown) could have had a weapon or the guy with him his friend (Johnson) could have had a weapon. Neither Brown or Johnson obeyed the officer's command, IMO. A struggle ensued and shots were fired. The officer was assaulted and a young man is dead.

There has been a robbery and assault on the store clerk or owner. Brown is shown in footage assaulting the clerk or owner. LE is called and responded. Brown fit the description of the young man the officer stopped, or attempted to stop. Everything went south from there. We do not know exactly what transpired.

I am torn about whether or not LE should have provided more information to the public, but it could have been communicated in a much better way. LE could have simply stated that the investigation was not complete and rather than give out incomplete information that it would be given upon the conclusion. LE has never given a press conference giving out all the information they have.

I don't think there is a mother on earth that does not think her son is the best there is. My heart goes out to her for losing a son.

IF it is Brown on that store footage, then he assaulted the clerk/owner, and he stole property that was not his. That is a crime. He is not quite the angel he was thought to be, and that did not look like any gentle giant to me on that footage.

This is beside the point, but what many people use those cigars for is to hollow them out and replace the tobacco with pot.

This post is too long, but after this one I will go back to just reading. (I promise) My point is that I will wait for the facts. If the officer is wrong, I will accept it. BUT, please do not judge this officer by anything other than the true facts that will eventually come out.

MOO
Click to expand...
thank you :loveyou:
 
There's been a lot of discussion in the media, on the part of law enforcement and the elected officials, as well as here, about LE building a healthy, respectful relationship with the community members they serve. I agree that it's absolutely vital that LE works with (rather than against) their communities, in order to solve crimes, close cases, and protect their communities.

However, a relationship is a two-way street. The civilian community, both in Ferguson and in the country as a whole, also bears responsibility for doing their part in developing a healthy, respectful relationship with their local LE.

Respect goes both ways. It's been my experience that if one extends respect, then respect is typically reciprocated. Not in every instance & circumstance, of course - but more often than not, IMO. This applies to LE as well as to civilian community members.

If an adversarial relationship exists, then I think both LE and the public need to examine the dynamics contributing to the adversarial relationship.

Adversity isn't created in a vacuum. Responsibility isn't a one-sided coin.
 
which was what I had thought was being said earlier with the release of the store robbery police report. The press conference just held by the police chief clarified that the officer did not know MB was a suspect in a robbery so that can't be part of the analysis of the actions. Prior to the presser I was assuming the officer did know about the robbery and the suspect description. So, it is irrelevant to the interaction between the officer and MB if the police chief is correct and the officer did not know.

But people will likely use it in some way. As lawstudent eloquently expressed, the angelic victim issue is omnipresent where one side beatifies the victim and the other side finds something as no one is an angel and in reality the character of the people invovled is not relevant to an evaluation of their actions. People will also say, well, he wasn't just innocently walking to his grandmothers (something I heard earlier-not sure if this was actually said), he had just committed a crime so he had reason to avoid and not respond to police commands (presser also indicated that the stolen property was found on the victim) and perhaps act aggressively. But, in reality, all that matters are the actions. What were the officers commands and the decedents response and actions which preceeded the officer using deadly force. Were the officers actions reasonable and deadly force justfied?



liljim said:
will be interesting to hear what the justification for not releasing the fact that michael was stopped for being a suspect in a felony robbery and assault until today was?

they must have known that information immediately, if not prior to the stop because he should have called it in. maybe he did, so then they would have had that information right at the outset of the investigation.

i wonder if a lot of this outrage, rioting, looting could have been avoided if they had released it right away.

maybe they have a good reason idk but it is deinitely unusual, when a police shooting happens you usually hear that same day/night something like "officers responding to a robbery found the suspects and X happened..." "officers stopped two men who were suspected of being involved in..."

but what we heard here was only that the origin of the incident was that they were walking in the middle of the street... until today.
Click to expand...
 
Kimster said:
So, are we going to strike the comment about the chief lying?
Click to expand...

If you give me a few, I'll find it. Unless I'm completely losing my mind from lack of sleep, I recall hearing it on TV I think. But....it's a non-issue. Doesn't really change anything either way.
 
"there was theft and assault shown on camera. "
There were two boxes of cigars. Johnson didn't want to shop lift, and put his on the counter. MB picked up another box and tried to walk out when the clerk attempted to stop him. At the last press conference they said evidence of the theft was recovered at the shooting
 
sherbetjello said:
His reply wasn't no (it was to the name Anonymous gave, which was a lie). . . he said "No comment."
Click to expand...

This could be. I might have turned my ears off after the no and didn't hear comment because it just wasn't a big deal to me at the time.
 
Congrats to Highway Patrol people who seemed to have come in and helped.

Just hope we have seen the worse already and that people will be able to calm down in that town and begin to heal wounds. This is going to take some time and lets hope nothing gets swept under a rug.
 
reedus23 said:
If you give me a few, I'll find it. Unless I'm completely losing my mind from lack of sleep, I recall hearing it on TV I think. But....it's a non-issue. Doesn't really change anything either way.
Click to expand...

Earlier, someone was calling the chief a liar. I'm not going to let that stand without a link to an interview. :no:
 
No - he was called to the c-store before seeing them walking in the street. He stopped them because they fit the description of the people robbing the c-store.
 
So it seems the large lad wasn't on a lovely little stroll to grandmas.

He was a big terrorizing a little shop keep.
Walking down the middle of the road, like he owned it...I don't find it a leap to "assault a police officer" forcing officer to defend himself.

IMO
 
lawstudent said:
I really wish the media would stop portraying every possible victim as an angel and guaranteeing they will be torn down one way or another. Newsflash: no one is an angel. Some are much worse than others, but it's bad enough when the family goes there, and then the media just keeps running with it. Then, when inevitably some sort of "flaw" arises, people use it to say "aha! Not a victim" as though victim equates with flawless altruist. Murder victims can be amazing people, horrible people, career criminals, or in between as most of us are. Yes, learning more about the victim is relevant at times to determining the circumstances surrounding an alleged crime. But this ridiculous pattern of everyone is an angel and then no wait they are not a truly innocent victim is really getting tired. The legal system has never required victims be innocent, only that they be victims of a crime. Obviously whether or not this shooting was justified will include an analysis of Michael Brown's prior actions, but if he was indeed shot in the back, that obviously still raises questions even if he was suspected of a crime he in fact committed. Everyone needs to wait for the facts, and I think most people are at this point. It's just the ones who don't wait are the loudest and make the poorest choices.
Click to expand...

BBM. Where do you get that Brown is a murder victim? At this point, the only true victim I've seen is the store clerk he laid his hands on and terrorized. That store video is pretty clear, imo.
 
MyBelle said:
BBM. Where do you get that Brown is a murder victim? At this point, the only true victim I've seen is the store clerk he laid his hands on and terrorized. That store video is pretty clear, imo.
Click to expand...

Even with the recent info regarding Brown's criminal activity, you don't shoot to kill even a suspect who has his hands in the air and is surrendering. He is a victim. He was shot to death while surrendering. IMO, that's murder.
 
reedus23 said:
Just catching up so apologize if already answered. Not sure I can link right now because I can't listen but it was in an interview I believe from yesterday with Chief Jackson. He was specifically asked about 2 names. One name the reporter I believe only knew of the first name. The second name (the cop involved) the reporter had first and last. Chief responded by saying that the first name doesn't even work for the force they have no "fill in the name" on the force. When he didn't respond to the second name, the reporter followed up with something to the effect of "so what about...". I think that's the reference. Because I'm watching most stuff on local news, not through links, I'll have to search for it.
Click to expand...

reedus23 said:
If you give me a few, I'll find it. Unless I'm completely losing my mind from lack of sleep, I recall hearing it on TV I think. But....it's a non-issue. Doesn't really change anything either way.
Click to expand...

reedus23 said:
This could be. I might have turned my ears off after the no and didn't hear comment because it just wasn't a big deal to me at the time.
Click to expand...
Why reply then? Because this is how misinformation gets spread imo.
 
Boytwnmom said:
which was what I had thought was being said earlier with the release of the store robbery police report. The press conference just held by the police chief clarified that the officer did not know MB was a suspect in a robbery so that can't be part of the analysis of the actions. Prior to the presser I was assuming the officer did know about the robbery and the suspect description. So, it is irrelevant to the interaction between the officer and MB if the police chief is correct and the officer did not know.

But people will likely use it in some way. As lawstudent eloquently expressed, the angelic victim issue is omnipresent where one side beatifies the victim and the other side finds something as no one is an angel and in reality the character of the people invovled is not relevant to an evaluation of their actions. People will also say, well, he wasn't just innocently walking to his grandmothers (something I heard earlier-not sure if this was actually said), he had just committed a crime so he had reason to avoid and not respond to police commands (presser also indicated that the stolen property was found on the victim) and perhaps act aggressively. But, in reality, all that matters are the actions. What were the officers commands and the decedents response and actions which preceeded the officer using deadly force. Were the officers actions reasonable and deadly force justfied?
Click to expand...


This appears to explain why nobody could come out with a statement that the officer was stopping him for the robbery. So, it really could be pretty bad. The only thing left is if there was any sort of struggle for a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 400 (members: 138, guests: 262)

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
262
Total visitors
400
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,541
Messages
18,255,367
Members
234,682
Latest member
kroked
Back
Top