MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #10

[bettybaby00]

I just don't think size alone determines this. I have dated big men in my life. One was a professional wrestler.. Still not the kind of guys who would attack and keep attacking. One was 6'4 one was 6'7 and one was 6'3.

All big guys.

BBM

Of course it doesn't. But it's a factor. Consider the video at the store. If DJ were the one stealing, would he have had the same menacing, and threatening impact that MB had?

Just like bullies in the school yard. Do they pick on the biggest guy in school?

Time is an important factor, this all went down in about a minute.

 

[Muffet]

MB wasn't shot as he was running away.

That's why there were no bullet wounds in his back.

... Or left arm.


Even if you discount the autopsy reports about all the shots coming from the front, and trust the "assistant's" attempt to say one "could have been shot from the back" you would have to believe that officer Wilson had a real grudge against MB's right arm.

Because MB's right arm was on the officer's right as MB was running away, then it was on his left when MB turned around and faced him.

I believe most in the eye-witness report of the guy who didn't know he was being recorded. He said MB turned around and went after the officer even though the officer was shooting.

As for any shots that were fired toward MB while he was running away, those could have been warning shots (doubtful), or just misses (likely), but they would be justified because they fall under the Fleeing Felon rule, as cited here ad nauseum.

Even if the chief was lying when he said that Wilson realized after the initial stop that they fit the description of the BOLO, and didn't know that MB had committed a felony then, he knew without any doubt that MB committed a very serious felony at the car.

I believe he had good reason to and did (as his friend reported) think MB was acting crazy "on something" to do all MB did, and considered MB to be a danger not only to himself, but anyone else who got in his way.

 

[SnoopyDawgDawg]

I'm going to PM you my address and a plane ticket!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, me first!!

 

[LambChop]

Hello Everyone!

I have been reading here for a while and finally registered. Just got approved and I'm excited being here and look forward discussing this case with you all.

Welcome Oceans


:welcome:

 

[katydid23]

So was MB thinking that he was going to deflect bullets with his arms like Iron Man?

Was he thinking he was going to survive onslaught of bullets and somehow come back and get his hands on OW?

Same thing we have to think what reasonable police officer would do, shouldn't we apply some reason to what a reasonable human being in the same situation would do?

Why in the world would MB come running back to OW who at this point was pointing the gun straight at him?

Imo, MB was not thinking clearly that day. Nothing he did prior to the shooting was rational either. He does the stupid strong armed robbery right there in a local market. Did he think no one would recognize him? Then he walks away down the middle of a street, blocking traffic, holding the stolen blunt wraps. What makes sense about that? And when an officer does roll by, he defies the request for them to get out of the road. WHY did he do that? That was just asking for trouble. He was not trying to avoid confrontation with the cops even then.

So given the strange way he was behaving, I think he was pretty high on something. I dont think the full tox reports are out yet.

 

[tlcya]

I believe the gash type wound to the hand to be an shoring entry wound from the same bullet that may have then entered his chest.

If that is true, IMO both of those wounds came from the shot at the car during the "serious altercation". If true it is also why family attorney would rather minimize that altercation saying it doesn't matter - what matters is what happened after. Because IMO if that injury occurred at the car over a struggle for the gun it makes the case for justification. I cannot consider the ridiculous story of two young males just out for a stroll and a cop who unprovoked decided to pull a kid into his car and shove a gun in his face. I have nothing to indicate that mindset in OW. I do however have some clues which lead to MB's mindset that day. Much as the family attorney would prefer I didn't.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Fox News covering Ferguson again ,... Mike Brown's Father speaking at Peace Rally...'Calling for a day of Silence'..

I can not stand Al.

......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't have any comment on Parcells. But it is basic anatomy and Cyril Wecht also said the same thing. He could have been hit while running away.

Cyril Wecht spoke on this case?
Do you have a link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gngr~snap]

With all due respect, I didn't hear that OW asked MB for his ID. Did I miss that somewhere?
I couldn't look at MB and know he was a teenager. If pushed I'd say 17-24.

Regardless of the age I agree an officer can't just choose to shoot someone who is unarmed.
Sadly they are forced to do it, even unarmed young women...

All posts are MOO

 

[al66pine]

For LE Officer Wilson, gist is in first section, 563.046, in underscored phrases, imo.

Missouri Statutes. [SIZE=-2]
Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest [app to LE only]

563.046.
1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee.
In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) 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.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

[SIZE=-2] (L. 1977 S.B. 60) [/SIZE] [SIZE=-2] Effective 1-1-79 [/SIZE]​

[/SIZE]

"The headnotes, footnotes, annotations and index of the Missouri Revised Statutes, are used by permission of the Joint Committee on Legislative Research, the copyright holder." BBM UBM
​

^^^ Mo. section above, when LE is justified in using physical force ^^^
Everybody got it?
Good.
You're welcome.

Mo. section below re defense of persons is app to non-LE mostly, but also to LE in certain circumstances,
like when not acting inline of duty, e.g. LE at own home protecting self or fam at home against intruder, imo.

Use of force in defense of persons.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046[the section ^above]; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.
4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so. 5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force. [SIZE=-2]
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081)
[/SIZE]
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm
​

 

[Linda7NJ]

For LE Officer Wilson, gist is in first section, 563.046, in underscored phrases, imo.

Missouri Statutes. [SIZE=-2]
Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest [app to LE only]

563.046.
1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee.
In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) 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.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

[SIZE=-2] (L. 1977 S.B. 60) [/SIZE] [SIZE=-2] Effective 1-1-79 [/SIZE]​

[/SIZE]

"The headnotes, footnotes, annotations and index of the Missouri Revised Statutes, are used by permission of the Joint Committee on Legislative Research, the copyright holder." BBM UBM
​

^^^ Mo. section above, when LE is justified in using physical force ^^^
Everybody got it?
Good.
You're welcome.

Mo. section below re defense of persons is app to non-LE mostly, but also to LE in certain circumstances,
like when not acting inline of duty, e.g. LE at own home protecting self or fam at home against intruder, imo.

Use of force in defense of persons.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046[the section ^above]; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.
4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so. 5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force. [SIZE=-2]
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081)
[/SIZE]
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm
​

It should have NEVER went to the grand jury!
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gngr~snap]

According to Fox News contributor Rob Wheeler, a former D.C. homicide detective--> 12 rounds in the clip and 1 round in the chamber...

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20140816_100000_FOX_and_Friends_Saturday#start/240/end/300

OK that's what I thought I heard 10-13 typically.
I bet that MB thought 10 and OW was empty. OW shot twice more and still would have had one left if the 10 shots fired from onlookers was correct.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/14/police-chief-shot-was-fired-officers-car-death-michael-brown
All posts are MOO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Been looking for Cyril's comments on this case...

Found this... He agrees with me

"“But you can't stop the family from filing a civil-rights lawsuit,” Wecht said. “And they will file one.”
http://triblive.com/mobile/6636507-96/autopsy-brown-wecht

Edited...found a video

http://uneditedpolitics.com/pathologist-cyril-wecht-brown-couldve-felt-pain-before-he-died-81814/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Muffet]

Been looking for Cyril's comments on this case...

Found this... He agrees with me

"“But you can't stop the family from filing a civil-rights lawsuit,” Wecht said. “And they will file one.”
http://triblive.com/mobile/6636507-96/autopsy-brown-wecht




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, and that whole civil suit abuse (imo) just wads my panties all up. Don't get me started.

 

[Dana]

For LE Officer Wilson, gist is in first section, 563.046, in underscored phrases, imo.

Missouri Statutes. [SIZE=-2]
Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest [app to LE only]

563.046.
1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee.
In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) 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.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

[SIZE=-2] (L. 1977 S.B. 60) [/SIZE] [SIZE=-2] Effective 1-1-79 [/SIZE]​

[/SIZE]

"The headnotes, footnotes, annotations and index of the Missouri Revised Statutes, are used by permission of the Joint Committee on Legislative Research, the copyright holder." BBM UBM
​

^^^ Mo. section above, when LE is justified in using physical force ^^^
Everybody got it?
Good.
You're welcome.

Mo. section below re defense of persons is app to non-LE mostly, but also to LE in certain circumstances,
like when not acting inline of duty, e.g. LE at own home protecting self or fam at home against intruder, imo.

Use of force in defense of persons.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046[the section ^above]; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.
4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so. 5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force. [SIZE=-2]
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081)
[/SIZE]
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm
​

I'm thinking THIS needs to be posted on every page of these threads since I see the same posters posting things that seem to tell me they are clueless of what the laws are. These or most of these laws have been posted off and on throughout these threads. Or, maybe they don't care and are just fanning fires, or, it's too long of a post and too bothersome to read.

 

[Muffet]

I'm thinking THIS needs to be posted on every page of these threads since I see the same posters posting things that seem to tell me they are clueless of what the laws are. These or most of these laws have been posted off and on throughout these threads. Or, maybe they don't care and are just fanning fires, or, it's too long of a post and too bothersome to read.

I have been fantasizing about a *READ THIS FIRST* post or sticky thing.

 

[aa9511]

IMO You can't even compare Chrisman shooting Rodriguez to ODW shooting MB. Two totally different scenario's.

MB was already a proven thief in the store (by video) and disobeying a LEO.

Rodriguez didn't do anything wrong, and was trying to leave his residence. Also a taser didn't work so Chrisman shot him to death. Even though a jury could not agree on Murder a plea was done instead of another trial. Chrisman is serving time in prison.

Chrisman thread is here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...f-Richard-Chrisman&highlight=richard+chrisman


Again IMO

It was recorded on the 911 call that his mom was saying he was acting very erratically and he was throwing things around the house and yelling. If he would have been in a public area, I'm sure then it would be some law he was breaking. My point is, the actions were along the same lines.

Danny also was disobeying LEO. Remember the officer wanted to come in, and he was saying no get a warrant. How is that totally different from officer telling MB to get off the street, and him not obeying. In both cases, an officer wanted one thing and the victim didn't want that thing.

It all boils down too - they both pi**** off the police officer.

Chrisman was pi**** off that Danny was listening to him. Wilson was ticked off that MB wasn't listening to him.

JMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Fox News covering Ferguson again ,... Mike Brown's Father speaking at Peace Rally...'Calling for a day of Silence'..

Did you see how they all put their arms up?

It's laughable! IMO

Wilson may have missed center mass... But he was certainly aiming for it. He definitely wasn't aiming ABOVE the head of Brown like Rev. Al and everyone else on that stage is trying their hardest to convince everyone of.

It's disgraceful, dishonest and a blatant attempt to incite and manipulate.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LambChop]

Warning: Stay on topic. We are discussing the Michael Brown case so lets not head off on a discussion on a case that has nothing to do with this one.


Thanks, Lambchop

 

[CHERIE.T]

and yet there is STILL very little talk about what is heard on that video by the one person who I think may have actually seen the events and described MB "in" the vehicle window. Some sort of struggle that he could not clearly see. What sounded like a gunshot. MB running and then turning and coming back toward the officer and the officer firing his weapon and continuing to fire. This is probably IMO the best most reasonable account of what was happening from an uninterested third party observer made through excited utterances just after the shooting.

But there has been very little coverage and attention given that man's words in the press even now. I hope that young man came forward to investigators and has given his statement. I really do. Because of all the witness accounts, that man's seems the most realistic and unbiased account of just what he could see without the assumptions and commentary that the others have inserted into their statements.

It just occurred to me to wonder if the unidentified voice in the cell video could possibly be that of Brady, the witness who most recently came forward in the press.

Absolutely agree. The person talking gave what appeared to be an honest, very likely description of what actually happened. I'm surprised he hasn't constantly been interviewed by all major news stations.


Maybe that is Brady.