MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #19

[Truthy]

Regarding Reedus's and Truthy's posts last thread, how many witnesses do you think corroborate Wilson's account? And how many witnesses has the family attorney said they have?

This information has been posted multiple times with quotes and links. Per reports, more than a dozen witnesses support Wilson's account. Per the attorney, they have six. And as sonjay and others have pointed out, within those six Crump/Parks refer to, many actually confirm that Michael was advancing on the officer. Frankly, the two construction workers referencing a 25 ft advance while Darren retreated firing, is some of the most compelling released so far supporting that Darren did indeed consider Michael a threat.

His spokesman, Edward Magee, said prosecutors review several police shootings each year but rarely pursue charges, largely because laws give police a broad latitude to defend themselves and use deadly force if they believe they are in imminent danger.


As for the contention that this case should go before a jury to sort witness testimony, that's why there is a grand jury evaluating everything.

The prosecutor opted not to press charges and presented the case to the grand jury because of conflicting testimony from witnesses, his office said.
http://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-grand-jury-weighs-charges-ferguson-shooting-231928795.html

Are the "reports" you are referencing largely based on anonymous sources? I'm not interested in gossip that no one can verify.

It rubs me the wrong way that we still do not have an official incident report.
Not to be confused with investigative information-just the incident report. The public was owed this a long while back, according to the state's sunshine laws.

 

[katydid23]

That final question is just his opinion, no different than the opinions expressed here. I don't see any danger to the public at the time myself. Yes, I know people will raise theoretical dangers, but there there was no articulable danger posed to the public at the time. If anything, the workers and some others out there apparently didn't feel he posed a threat to the officer, much less themselves. The question for me at this point will be whether he posed a threat to the officer at the time, which will kind of also fold into whether the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest.

THe question for me and the question for you are not that important according to the statute. :wink:
It doesn't matter if we think the suspect posed a danger. What matters is what the 'reasonable' officer would think, in that moment. And given that OW had just been blindsided, shoved back into his vehicle, punched in the face, and had his own gun pointed towards him, in a life and death struggle, he is going to see MB as a deadly threat.

How would he know that the attacker was not a threat to the public? Why wouldn't he assume MB was dangerous, given what he had just experienced? It would seem that MB was desperate to avoid being searched and/or questioned. So OW would not know what the source of the desperation/urgency was. Maybe he was running from serious charges. Maybe he was having a mental breakdown. Maybe he just hated cops. OW could not know WHY MB was so violent, but he did know he was extremely dangerous.

I think some here are looking at what WE NOW KNOW in order to decide if MB was dangerous risk to the public. But we need to look at what OW knew at the time. Which was nothing except for what he had just experienced. He had not even searched him yet. He did not know for sure he was unarmed. He did not know his name or age. He did not know why MB attacked him. So how could he say he was NOT a danger to the public when he had just had to fight for his very life moments earlier?

 

[katydid23]

Are the "reports" you are referencing largely based on anonymous sources? I'm not interested in gossip that no one can verify.

It rubs me the wrong way that we still do not have an official incident report.
Not to be confused with investigative information-just the incident report. The public was owed this a long while back, according to the state's sunshine laws.

No, the public was not owed thew incident report--because the case is still open and ongoing. Sunshine laws do not supersede ongoing investigations.

 

[popsicle]

Jessica Lussenhop ‏@Lussenpop 2m
Mandy Murphey, anchor for Fox2/KTVI confirms that she did pointedly ask about existence of the shoplifting video of #michaelbrown...


Jessica Lussenhop ‏@Lussenpop 1m
...days before Chief Jackson released it on Aug. 15. Did so verbally, then submitted a Sunshine Request, she says.

Jessica Lussenhop ‏@Lussenpop 49s
She says she asked #Ferguson Mayor Knowles about it. From her email : "I asked him the question and he gave me no information about it."

 

[Truthy]

"What I do not understand is why the FPD is ignoring the Sunshine Laws and media's specific requests for a detailed incident report."
[ THe FPD is not ignoring the sunshine laws---sunshine laws do not override the investigatory procedures protocol. ]

"Releasing other info, and a completely blank incident report is thumbing their nose at their state laws. IMHO. They are causing a lot of distrust and angst, and do not have a legal leg to stand on. "

[They can release other info, like the robbery video, if there is no ongoing investigation into that case. They do have a legal leg to stand on. The angst and distrust began way before this case, imo.]

It appears you confusing are standard police reports (identified as public records under the states Sunshine law) with investigative reports undertaken in special circumstances, which rely on standard reports as their starting point. Two different things.

At this point we cannot even be assured OW filed a detailed incident report, which is a requirement of the FPD as well as state law. That should scare every single one of us who actually believes in "accountability", IMHO.

MOO.

 

[Muffet]

I think that is MAJOR that she said he never got his hands above his mid-chest area. And people still say that she is one of the witnesses saying his hands were up.

Also, she said he may have taken a step about a centimeter towards OW. Sorry Piaget, but a man that is 6ft4 and 300 lbs, cannot move just a centimeter in one step. If he took a step, then he took a step. And they were pretty close together at that point.

Imo, if MB truly wanted to surrender then there would be no reason to turn around to face the officer. I am sure he has seen how LE does it. They have the suspects stay with their BACKS TURNED, and hands up or behind their necks. If the suspect turns to face the officer he may get shot. I am sure MB would have known that. [Didn't he ever watch cops? :cop:]

IKR? Demonstrating compliance and submission is just not that difficult. Even animals know how. It's instinctive.

I remember when I moved from my hometown to my college town... At home, if I got pulled over, I'd jump out of the car and walk toward the officer, smiling, greeting, no problem.

When I got pulled over years later, I tried the same thing. Holy moly!

I realized times and situations had changed, though, and didn't blame him. I was so shaken from the chastisement, it was a pretty funny exchange once he got to my window. (After helping my shaking body back into my seat.)

I don't do anything to give any officer reason to doubt my good will towards him.


Sent via Tapatalk for S4

 

[LambChop]

Anyone who would assault a police officer and/or try to get at his weapon is a danger to society. It's as true today as it was 100 years ago. In my own experience that is what any officer will tell you he believes. To me it is just common sense. jmo

 

[Truthy]

No, the public was not owed thew incident report--because the case is still open and ongoing. Sunshine laws do not supersede ongoing investigations.

Mo.Rev.Stat.§ 610.100.2.
The Arrest Record Law, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100 et seq., was amended in 1995 to distinguish between arrest, incident and investigation reports of law enforcement agencies.
Definitions. "Arrest reports" are records of an arrest and of any detention or confinement incident to an arrest. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100.1(2). An "arrest" is defined as the actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his or her submission to custody, under authority of a warrant or otherwise for a criminal violation which results in the issuance of the summons or the person being booked. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.160.1(1). "Incident reports" consist of immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident, including any logs of reported crimes, accidents and complaints maintained by the law enforcement agency. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100.1(4). "Investigative reports" are reports other than arrest reports or incident reports that are prepared by a law enforcement agency inquiring into a crime or suspected crime, either in response to an incident report or to evidence developed by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100.1(5)


Two different things, according to law.


All IMHO.

 

[katydid23]

IKR? Demonstrating compliance and submission is just not that difficult. Even animals know how. It's instinctive.

I remember when I moved from my hometown to my college town... At home, if I got pulled over, I'd jump out of the car and walk toward the officer, smiling, greeting, no problem.

When I got pulled over years later, I tried the same thing. Holy moly!

I realized times and situations had changed, though, and didn't blame him. I was so shaken from the chastisement, it was a pretty funny exchange once he got to my window. (After helping my shaking body back into my seat.)

I don't do anything to give any officer reason to doubt my good will towards him.


Sent via Tapatalk for S4

Ha. I experienced the exact same thing. The cops in my small suburban area all knew us and our parents. I knew the cops kids.

Then I moved to Berkeley for college. First time I got pulled over I immediately leaned over and began rummaging through the glove box to find my paperwork. Look up to see guns pointed at me from both sides of the car. OOPSIE

 

[Muffet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnhB-_cIxKM

I watched this quite a few times, and while I obviously and definitely support ODW, if I were in that video, either of the two men who raised their arms ... If I were shrugging at someone to ask "What's up?" or responding "I dunno," I would not raise my hands up in the air as those two did. Lift my shoulders and my hands in the air, palms up and extended a bit out from my body, but I don't think they would be any higher or very much higher than my shoulders. Of course, if I were actually there, and with gunshots ... that would prob cause a rush of adrenaline, and there's no telling how high my hands would go! My feet would probably leave the ground, too!

So, since these men have spoken (I hadn't heard that), did they say why the arms in the air? Were they interviewed on TV?

I think they were copying the guy who walked by (the one the CNN version cut) or raising their arms higher for emphasis.

I don't personally believe his hands were that high, especially since even Piaget said they didn't get above his chest.

But either way doesn't make a difference to me, since

a) simply having hands up can mean a lot of things

b) the same guys say he was advancing towards the officer, who was backing up. (Another thing CNN and other media left out)

Advancing on anyone while they are backing away from you is an aggressive act, since they obviously don't want you to get closer to them.

Here is the full story, before CNN twisted it.
http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/cr...5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html?mobile_touch=true

Sent via Tapatalk for S4

 

[katydid23]

Mo.Rev.Stat.§ 610.100.2.
The Arrest Record Law, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100 et seq., was amended in 1995 to distinguish between arrest, incident and investigation reports of law enforcement agencies.
Definitions. "Arrest reports" are records of an arrest and of any detention or confinement incident to an arrest. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100.1(2). An "arrest" is defined as the actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his or her submission to custody, under authority of a warrant or otherwise for a criminal violation which results in the issuance of the summons or the person being booked. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.160.1(1). "Incident reports" consist of immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident, including any logs of reported crimes, accidents and complaints maintained by the law enforcement agency. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100.1(4). "Investigative reports" are reports other than arrest reports or incident reports that are prepared by a law enforcement agency inquiring into a crime or suspected crime, either in response to an incident report or to evidence developed by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100.1(5)


Two different things, according to law.


All IMHO.

What arrest report are you referring to? Who was arrested?
They did release the incident report already.

 

[DebinGA]

I bet those 40+ FBI/CRD agents have been interviewing everyone they can find that OW ever pulled over/arrested, looking for signs of "racial animus", real or imagined, to support a Civil Rights charge.

 

[Lovejac]

that attitude was on full display when the demonstrators were in the face of an AA police officer and screaming at him and the media captured it on video. The officer stood there and did not react.

Yep. The AA's in Ferguson are complaining about how unfair it is that there aren't more AA officers on the police force, but the few AA officers that are on the police force, they treat them like :censored:

 

[Muffet]

550 KTRS St. Louis ‏@550KTRS 7h
New focus on minority voting after Brown’s death: FERGUSON, MO (AP) – A few miles from the street where Mich... http://www.ktrs.com/?p=5183

This might sound wrong and go over like a lead balloon, but as much as I want to see people empowered and involved in their local, state, and national politics, I have a (pipe?) dream that we could put more emphasis on educating potential voter objectively about all the options, history, views, processes, and consequences instead of just saying "Vote. Period"

So I guess if I had a booth set up to sign up to vote, it would include handouts giving them what they should have learned and retained in school. I wouldn't stop them from voting without reading first, but I'd request that they show a grasp of it before I felt comfortable personally signing them up.

Sent via Tapatalk for S4

 

[katydid23]

wolf blitzer on now--just teased upcoming story, talking about MB's body being left out in the blazing sun for 4 hours....:sigh:

 

[Truthy]

What arrest report are you referring to? Who was arrested?
They did release the incident report already.

Incident reports and arrest reports are both types of the same thing (called an arrest report only if an arrest in name, otherwise it is an incident) they are both initial records taken promptly after an arrest or incident, recording details - "facts and circumstances" of the incident according to the state law I cited.

Without any details, what they released is NOT an incident report. It has nothing to do with the investigation- this is information they owe the public, according to their sunshine laws. It is supposed to be recorded promptly after the incident, and we have no idea if one was taken. SO we are left to rely on gossip instead of the info we should have.

'"Incident reports" consist of immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident, including any logs of reported crimes, accidents and complaints maintained by the law enforcement agency.' - see link above.

ALL MOO, but Mo state law is quoted above as making a clear distinction between these and any info related to any *subsequent* investigation.

 

[katydid23]

Incident reports and arrest reports are both types of the same thing (called an arrest report only if an arrest in name, otherwise it is an incident) they are both initial records taken promptly after an arrest or incident, recording details - "facts and circumstances" of the incident according to the state law I cited.

Without any details, what they released is NOT an incident report. It has nothing to do with the investigation- this is information they owe the public, according to their sunshine laws. It is supposed to be recorded promptly after the incident, and we have no idea if one was taken. SO we are left to rely on gossip instead of the info we should have.

'"Incident reports" consist of immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident, including any logs of reported crimes, accidents and complaints maintained by the law enforcement agency.' - see link above.

ALL MOO, but Mo state law is quoted above as making a clear distinction between these and any info related to any *subsequent* investigation.

They released the incident report in its rudimentary form. They are not going to release one that fills in the blanks concerning the shooting until the investigation is closed. That would be unfair to all of the parties involved.

 

[Elley Mae]

wolf blitzer on now--just teased upcoming story, talking about MB's body being left out in the blazing sun for 4 hours....:sigh:

Where the heck has he been, vacation? Come on Wolf, ketchup,

 

[Muffet]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/did-mo-law-allow-for-deadly-force-arrest-of-mike-brown/

This discusses the MO police officer's use of deadly force statutes we've already seen, but toward the bottom also cites the specific jury instructions regarding the same given by the judge during a court trial:

"First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer (making) (or) (attempting to make) a lawful arrest (or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest) or [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and
Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay) [emphasis added], and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.
The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty (under Count ____).
As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body."

Thanks so much, Deb! I saw those jury instructions somewhere online a while back and couldn't re-find them anywhere.

Great find, and should help us a lot. :blowkiss:



Sent via Tapatalk for S4

 

[katydid23]

Incident reports and arrest reports are both types of the same thing (called an arrest report only if an arrest in name, otherwise it is an incident) they are both initial records taken promptly after an arrest or incident, recording details - "facts and circumstances" of the incident according to the state law I cited.

Without any details, what they released is NOT an incident report. It has nothing to do with the investigation- this is information they owe the public, according to their sunshine laws. It is supposed to be recorded promptly after the incident, and we have no idea if one was taken. SO we are left to rely on gossip instead of the info we should have.

'"Incident reports" consist of immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident, including any logs of reported crimes, accidents and complaints maintained by the law enforcement agency.' - see link above.

ALL MOO, but Mo state law is quoted above as making a clear distinction between these and any info related to any *subsequent* investigation.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the investigation. The incident report would have to be filled out by OW, who is facing potential murder charges. He can not be forced to fill out that report at this time, given the situation he is facing.