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

[epiphany]

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.

But at this 3 PM press conference, Chief is saying this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-and-michael-brown-did-not-relate-to-robbery/

“The initial contact between the officer and Mr. Brown was not related to the robbery,” Thomas Jackson, the police chief, said during a news conference Friday afternoon.

Rather, it stemmed from the fact that Brown and his friend were “walking down the street blocking traffic,” Jackson said.

 

[popsicle]

Retweeted by David Carson
​

​

​

Tim Dickinson ‏@7im 54m
This man saw Michael Brown get gunned down from his Ferguson apartment & tweeted in live timehttps://twitter.com/7im/timelines/499639344613695488 …
​

​

​

 

[MyBelle]

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.

Actually, police are trained to shoot to kill. There is an investigation to see if it was justified. Leaping to a conclusion of homicide prior to the completion of an investigation serves no useful purpose, imo.

 

[IndDia]

Reposted this below - meant to reply with quote...


The point I got from the statement was that acting out of rage and destroying your own community in your outrage (i.e. "burning down your own house") is pointless. Not much different from the saying: "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Thought it was a pretty straightfoward and eloquent statement, myself...

 

[IndDia]

I agree, that in his case, he didn't mean to say what he said. In fact, though - they didn't burn down their own homes. They burned down a QT, smashed innumerable store front windows and ruined 24 cop cars, none of it is destroying stuff that belongs to them. They destroyed other people's stuff. If they had in fact torched their own homes, it would be the thing to say. "Hey, look what you just did you burned down your own home". As it stands, I think it can be interpreted by those who want to that this is a call for further destruction.

The point I got from the statement was that acting out of rage and destroying your own community in your outrage (i.e. "burning down your own house") is pointless. Not much different from the saying: "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Thought it was a pretty straightfoward and eloquent statement, myself...

 

[katydid23]

So I guess there is no middle ground between overly aggressive LE and anarchy?

We can put people on the moon, but somehow, here in the United States, we can't manage to train LE in de-escalation and how to not shoot first and ask questions later? :waitasec:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a few relatives in Law Enforcement. Do you understand the pressure and stress they feel when they are out in uniform? They are given 'educational' videos of other officers SHOT IN THE HEAD IN BROAD DAYLIGHT by random perps/ ---it is always in the back of their minds that someone is trying to kill them because it is true. When they make a 'routine' traffic stop, they have NO IDEA whether that driver is actually an escaped killer on the run, willing to kill them and escape.

Some here seem to be implying that the Ferguson cops are racist. I think it is more likely that they are fearful. It is no secret that many gang members have a vendetta against the cops. They brag about wanting to 'shoot a pig.' They make threats about doing so. And then we wonder why some cops appear 'trigger happy.' I see it more as defensiveness and fear, as opposed to being coldblooded or racist. jmo

 

[Sonya610]

WOW thought so. Looks real bad for Wilson, now. And DJ will not be charged as accessory to robbery. JMO

(ETA response below was in reply to the concern that if Wilson didn't know about the robbery then that makes it look bad for him)

Not necessarily. Off. Wilson may not have been aware of the robbery but MB was!

Very likely MB thought he was busted when 10 minutes after he robbed the store a cop car pulls up to them and at that point he could have VERY easily acted odd or went on the offensive.

 

[sorrell skye]

Earlier, someone was calling the chief a liar. I'm not going to let that stand without a link to an interview. :no:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJoEjLlK_54

About 10:20 in the video, the reporter's exchange with Police Chief Jackson about the identity of the officer begins.

Yesterday, 8/14/14, Police Chief Jackson was asked by a reporter if Darrin Wilson was the officer involved in the shooting.

Jackson replied "I'm not gonna comment on it right now..." Jackson seemed flustered and at a loss for words, which led to a lot of speculation afterward that the reporter had, in fact, possibly named the correct officer.

The reporter then asked if Anonymous was just running name after name after name, to which Jackson replied "I think that's probably what they're doing - they're taking the name of everybody and throwing it out there."

But at no time during that press conference did Jackson categorically confirm or deny that Officer Wilson was the one involved in the shooting. Nor did he lie and state that Wilson wasn't the officer in question.

HTH

 

[CHERIE.T]

Retweeted by David Carson
​

​

​

stevegiegerich ‏@stevegiegerich 23m
Protesters asking @BarackObama to show solidarity with a visit to #Ferguson #MichaelBrown @stltoday
​

​

​

O F G S :gaah: :banghead::silenced:

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

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?

I don't think the robbery was irrelevant to the interaction between the officer and Michael Brown. In fact I think it's quite relevant because Michael Brown knew he had just robbed a store. Thus creating a motive for trying to flee and not obeying the officer's commands.

 

[popsicle]

Retweeted by David Carson
​

Tim Dickinson ‏@7im 54m
This man saw Michael Brown get gunned down from his Ferguson apartment & tweeted in live timehttps://twitter.com/7im/timelines/499639344613695488 …
​

The guy is tweeting normally until 1242 so how did he see him get gunned down and yet send normal tweets until 1303? This is why I question the witness statements.

 

[IndDia]

According to the police report, the officer who shot Brown was responding to a description provided by police dispatch searching for a suspect in the robbery nearby. The officer was identified as Darren Wilson, who is white, and has been on the police force for six years. He is currently on paid administrative leave.

That's a contradiction to what the chief said at the press conference today... hmmm...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-and-michael-brown-did-not-relate-to-robbery/

 

[Hatfield]

I don't think the robbery was irrelevant to the interaction between the officer and Michael Brown. In fact I think it's quite relevant because Michael Brown knew he had just robbed a store. Thus creating a motive for trying to flee and not obeying the officer's commands.

Sure, but if the first 2 shots were right in his back while he is trying to flee, then the officer should go up on murder charges.

 

[Kimster]

:modstop:

A couple of things:

1) We are not going to allow links to blogs in this case without prior approval. And approvals will be tough to get.

2) Posts directed at other posters rather than the case will earn a TO without explanation. If you have a problem with another member, use the alert feature and scroll on by OR use the ignore feature and keep it to yourself

Don't forget this. I mean it! :nono:

Friendly reminder.

 

[cady]

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.

I just watched the video of it on News1 JMO (at around 9:56 in video)

 

[MyBelle]

The point I got from the statement was that acting out of rage and destroying your own community in your outrage (i.e. "burning down your own house") is pointless. Not much different from the saying: "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Thought it was a pretty straightfoward and eloquent statement, myself...

Those that are doing the demonstrating most likely have no personal financial investment at risk. It's kinda like telling college students to not burn down the town after a football victory. Those that do the burning are usually those that have mom & dad picking up the tab of their college education.
Of course, that's just my opinion based on an experience with a partying son who decided a city alley was a perfect urinal.

 

[Hatfield]

I don't think the robbery was irrelevant to the interaction between the officer and Michael Brown. In fact I think it's quite relevant because Michael Brown knew he had just robbed a store. Thus creating a motive for trying to flee and not obeying the officer's commands.

Sure, but if the first 2 shots were right in his back while he is trying to flee, then the officer should go up on murder charges.

I dont think it is justified to kill someone just because they are running from you.

Now it would be different if we find out there was some sort of struggle for a weapon or something like that.

 

[Leilei]

Tape or not, is it worth shooting this young man? Last time I heard, petty theft and/or shoving someone into a display rack wasn't a death penalty crime.

 

[lawstudent]

What is the general policy regarding *police* shooting people who are running away? Clearly it is not standard procedure by any means, but it certainly happens without the police getting in trouble in some situations. Is it if the police know they have committed a violent act and think they are about to if they get into the community? Like prison escapees?

 

[Boytwnmom]

I don't think the robbery was irrelevant to the interaction between the officer and Michael Brown. In fact I think it's quite relevant because Michael Brown knew he had just robbed a store. Thus creating a motive for trying to flee and not obeying the officer's commands.

I mean legally relevant in evaluating the officers actions. The only things relevant are actions. MB May have been motivated to behave aggressively or violently against the officer because of the robbery and assault he apparently committed. But only those actions he engaged in are relevant to determining whether the officer was justified in responding to his actions with deadly force. Legal relevance is narrower than "regular relevance"!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD