MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #13

[Truthy]

I will explain it again for you Linda7NJ. When Baden first said MB was shot INTO the front... I explained numerous times that does not mean he was shot FROM the front. It means into the front of his body RELATIVE to the anatomical position. The front of your arms face BEHIND you in normal posture. This means that ..YES it is POSSIBLE that MB was shot first as he was walking or running or facing away from OW. It means nothing more than that... It means POSSIBLE. That is MO but it is also fact. It is possible.

I don't see why this wasn't obvious from the beginning if you look at the autopsy drawing, IMHO and if you need more info, look at pictures of anyone just standing, walking, etc. You'd see how obvious it is then that there are at least a few positions the arms could be in.
It's a completely different ballgame with the upper arm from the hands or lower arm, much more mobility.

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO the only reasons of the above that should give LE the right to use lethal force is if they were being attacked (not, had been attacked, but in the process of being attacked) or if someone is going for their gun (not, went for their gun, but is in the process of going for their gun). None of which has been proven yet IMO. I do not think a LEO should be allowed to use lethal force because a suspect is fleeing but that is just my personal opinion, the laws are fuzzy on this topic.

And hope the fleeing felon doesn't grab some innocent kid as a hostage...how's that work?
A police officers job is to get dangerous people arrested & off the street. If during the course of trying to make an arrest, an officer is assaulted, an attempt made for his weapon....that tells me the suspect is VERY DANGEROUS and needs to be stopped immediately.
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JLSChook]

IMO the only reasons of the above that should give LE the right to use lethal force is if they were being attacked (not, had been attacked, but in the process of being attacked) or if someone is going for their gun (not, went for their gun, but is in the process of going for their gun). None of which has been proven yet IMO. I do not think a LEO should be allowed to use lethal force because a suspect is fleeing but that is just my personal opinion, the laws are fuzzy on this topic.

The laws aren't "fuzzy" at all. Tennesse vs. Garner. (again)

I think I'll put that in my siggy line.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

 

[jmcgladr]

And hope the fleeing felon doesn't grab some innocent kid as a hostage...how's that work?
A police officers job is to get dangerous people arrested & off the street. If during the course of trying to make an arrest, an officer is assaulted, an attempt made for his weapon....that tells me the suspect is VERY DANGEROUS and needs to be stopped immediately.
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do most fleeing felons grab innocent kids as hostages? About how often does that sort of thing happen?

 

[CoolJ]

There is at least one eye witness that has been heard telling what occurred that appears to match up with Wilson's recall of the incident. Now as far as I know this person has not gone to the media and has not been identified to the public. We have also heard that there are 12 (give or take) witnesses that also back up Wilson's recall of the incident.

This is not going to be a case of he said/she said between only Wilson and the witnesses that claim Brown was shot for no reason with his hands in the air while trying to surrender.

MOO

BBM - even if that's not how it happened , doesn't mean shooting is justified necessarily.

 

[Phoebeb]

What video are you guys talking about? TIA

Piaget Crenshaw's. She did an interview where she talks about OW being stunned or bewildered after the shooting and her video is shown in background.

 

[LambChop]

Please do not get into a circular argument about jaywalking. Here is the definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jaywalking

Also note:

jaywalking is also a major contributor to pedestrian fatalities.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And hope the fleeing felon doesn't grab some innocent kid as a hostage...how's that work?
A police officers job is to get dangerous people arrested & off the street. If during the course of trying to make an arrest, an officer is assaulted, an attempt made for his weapon....that tells me the suspect is VERY DANGEROUS and needs to be stopped immediately.
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My problem with this is that you are assuming all the second hand information about what happened is true. We don't have DW statement about what happened at the car. We don't know.

 

[CoolJ]

Scarlett is seems you place a higher value on Michael Browns life than even he did.

On August 9th I believe Officer Wilson had every justifiable right to shoot Brown until he was perceived as no longer a threat to Wilson. IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM
Some of us place value on all life. From our owned loved ones to the worst of the worst, some people think it is not OK to kill anyone. And that is ok.

 

[TorisMom003]

BBM - even if that's not how it happened , doesn't mean shooting is justified necessarily.

If Brown was trying to attack Wilson, yet again, and began running towards him then yes it is a justified shooting. However, there are "witnesses" that claim that Brown had his hands in the air trying to surrender when he was shot. That was the point in my post. That is why the protestors were saying Hands up! Don't shoot! That has been the narrative for a while now from the Brown supporters. However, I do not believe that Brown had his hands in the air trying to surrender. I also don't believe that Wilson's telling of what happened while include that either.

MOO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Do most fleeing felons grab innocent kids as hostages? About how often does that sort of thing happen?

Hopefully most are prevented by officers doing their sworn duty ...stopping the DANGEROUS VIOLENT suspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Truthy]

Both sides agree there was an altercation BUT it has not been shown who was the instigator in that altercation. Was it MB or OW, or both? That, to me, is a HUGE question!

Yes, what is really odd to me is the whole "through the window" thing. IMHO, the entire incident starts with a very bizarre decision on someone's part to tussle through an open window. It will be interesting to me if we find out who initiated that physical contact.

 

[Linda7NJ]

BBM
Some of us place value on all life. From our owned loved ones to the worst of the worst, some people think it is not OK to kill anyone. And that is ok.

Perhaps those people that believe it's never okay, should sign up for police work...and carry an empty gun.


Heck, let's disarm police all together!
(Sarcasm)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CoolJ]

I was specifically speaking to those that make excuses for his behavior and believe Brown should have been permitted to flee....or at the very most shot in a leg.

I've read that here and IMO it's the sentiment of many of those in the media from Ferguson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem to be equating the fact that some people question whether or not MB should have been killed with those same people believing it is ok to participate in criminal behaviour. That is not the case. Not at all. As far as I am concerned at least. And I haven't heard ANYONE say that, here on Websleuths or otherwise.
It just ain't that black and white.

 

[cady]

And the take away should be?

Because the message I am hearing....it's perfectly okay to commit a strong armed robbery, disobey an officer of the law and it's acceptable to assault a police officer.
Mike Brown should have been permitted to continue skipping down the street ....
Mike Brown was no saint, no innocent cherub. He's not the one to be held out as some sacrificial lamb that was slaughtered in the street.

No! The take away should be ....STOP committing violent crimes. When caught, surrender, don't flee, don't attack officers, don't reach for their guns. It's dangerous and by doing so ....death is a very real possibility.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda, respectfully, that message you are getting is from rowdy protesters (and even,non-rowdy) on the streets of Ferguson. I don't think anyone here is sending that message. Some have soapboxed a bit about racial/economic divisions, and civil rights issues, but I doubt that anyone here thinks that MB was an upstanding citizen and I doubt that anyone thinks it's ok to be a bully and a thief. It is at least to me, clear that he was. But even bullies and thieves have a right to their day in court, if they are alive to have it..........even if they don't respect the civil rights of others. The only question here is was the killing justifiable according to law. I don't know. Let's see the evidence. JMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

IMO Wilson had an obligation and the duty to stop Brown, by any means necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ITA and that includes using deadly force. He didn't even have to pause and then fire again. He knew MB was a felon who was fleeing from him to avoid being arrested. He knew MB had just committed a Class A Felony assault because OW was the one he assaulted and by MO law that is all he had to know.

By MO law as soon as OW was assaulted and the instant MB ran he could have legally shot him dead right then and there.

All OW had to be aware of was MB was a suspect in a felony assault and MB was fleeing to avoid being captured. That gave him the legal right to use deadly force.

IMO, he did not want to kill MB but rather wanted to stop him and that is why there is a delay. But MB did not surrender and bum rushed him thinking he could overtake him and get his gun away from him, imo. Also Imo, the MB autopsy diagram lines up that this was a justifiable homicide. All of it is counter opposing to what most of the witnesses have had to say, who seem to want their 15 minutes of fame more, rather than tell the truth. Imo.

One of the most important witnesses I hope that LE has found by now is the two AA males who were talking back and forth about the shooting as they stood at the scene with one seeing it all and telling the other man about what he saw. He didn't know he was being taped at the time. He had no personal biases or agendas as he talked with the other AA male. He clearly said that MB turned back and came toward the officer. It all lines up to me. Although I do think they have found other witnesses who would prefer to talk to LE rather than trying sell themselves on tv who are telling LE the same thing that the unidentified AA man did on the video.

IMO

 

[Wysteria]

You're right. Brown's family (mother specifically) said nothing about wanting this case to go to the Grand Jury. She did, however, say that she wanted Wilson put on death row.

MOO

BBM

We all grieve differently. This I understand.

However, if my child was shot and killed by a LEO; (or anyone else for that matter); I can assure you that I would be unable to speak at all. I would be heavily medicated, or in a psychiatric hospital/facility in a comatose state... you get the idea.

I also understand that we need to tread carefully in speaking of the family; they are grieving for certain. I respect that. Unfortunately, my respect for the mother/family does have a limit as to what is acceptable regarding public statements that have been made. Irresponsibly is the kindest adjective I can think of at the moment, as to their conduct and what they have stated thus far.

However, I firmly believe that the mother/family's behavior did indeed add "fuel to the fire" in the aftermath of MB's death. Additionally; Al Sharpton et al were permitted to stand side by side with the family. The portion that I have bolded in your post is positively inexcusable; as I firmly believe this was not a race case until the family and their cohorts started to speak publicly. The italicized portion of my previous sentence indicates choice.

This case is about choices. The choice to strong arm, bully and rob a shopkeeper. The choice to not comply with LEO's commands. The choice to dangerously engage a LEO. It's sad really, this could have turned out differently if MB hadn't made fatal choices.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Perhaps those people that believe it's never okay, should sign up for police work...and carry an empty gun.


Heck, let's disarm police all together!
(Sarcasm)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think any of us want police to be unarmed or at risk. But we also don't want them acting like the police/Judge & Jury. There has to be an effort not to kill people even if they are doing something wrong. This was not a suspect that was running out of a store firing a weapon. He was not brandishing a knife and it seems at one point he was running away. If he was shot at while he was running away, I have a problem with that. A big one.

 

[CoolJ]

Both sides agree there was an altercation BUT it has not been shown who was the instigator in that altercation. Was it MB or OW, or both? That, to me, is a HUGE question!

This! What if what started this whole thing is that OW was pissed cause a couple teenagers back talked him so he pulled up to them and slammed his door into them.... If he instigated the physicality of this whole situation, does that change anything?

 

[jmcgladr]

Hopefully most are prevented by officers doing their sworn duty ...stopping the DANGEROUS VIOLENT suspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or maybe this scenario just doesn't happen very often.