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

[i.b.nora]

this witness describes Brown resisting arrest, physically:

Piaget Crenshaw, 19, said she was waiting for a ride to work when she saw a police officer attempting to place Brown in the squad car.

She then said she saw the teen, hands in the air, attempt to flee. Several shots hit Brown as he ran, Crenshaw said. She complied with a request that she give photos of the scene to authorities.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...d3acbe7f1.html


If Wilson " was ATTEMPTING" to put Brown in the car, then Brown was resisting arrest. Simple as that.

None of the three or four or five links you have provided to the article you are referencing, work. Can you fix? I would like to read the article for myself.

 

[Frydaddy]

sorry it took so long to hunt down the source...

Three witnesses..

DJ, TM and PC..


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_04e3885b-4131-5e49-b784-33cd3acbe7f1.html

Thanks, it threw me when you said three witnesses who didn't know Mike Brown. DJ obviously did.

 

[katydid23]

Why shoot though? He's unarmed and with his hands up. So what if he flees? Call for backup and chase on foot. If you lose him then you investigate later by the typical methods. Everyone lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, that would have been a better scenario. I agree. But I hate that people are trying to make Brown out to be an innocent choir boy, and make the officer out to be a KKK member looking to shoot a black kid. THAT IS NOT HOW THIS HAPPENED.

Wilson was blindsided by this 6 ft 3 inch robbery suspect. And once that physical assault happened, the officer was fighting for his life. It pisses me off that people ignore that part of the scenario.

 

[Gardenlady]

No, it shouldnt be. But if you struggle with the officer over his weapon, then it becomes a life or death struggle.

So if an officer is attacked in his squad car,punched in the face, and fights to keep his gun away from the attacker, you don't think he will be in fighting mode at that point, to save his life and the public at large?

Your hypothetical assumes the cop is telling the truth about what happened. I don't happen to buy it. But playing alone with the hypothetical, I will say this - the cop should use reasonable force to keep his weapon out of the hands of the criminal. If the criminal then runs, he is STILL NOT ARMED. The cop can them call for backup, follow by car or on foot, and if the suspect is lost they follow up and find him by other methods.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LemonCloud]

I couldn't agree with you more. All I get from some of these comments is that his behaviour warranted the punishment he received. This angers me as it makes me think of a case here in Toronto involving a young man, Sammy Yatim who was shot by a cop, even after he was down, for exposing himself on a streetcar while holding a knife. When he was shot he was alone in the streetcar, nowhere close to the cop. After he was shot repeatedly and lay on the ground unconscious and dying, they tapered him. And yet, people believe this behaviour warranted being shot to death. It's not right.

 

[Frydaddy]

None of the three or four or five links you have provided to the article you are referencing, work. Can you fix? I would like to read the article for myself.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_04e3885b-4131-5e49-b784-33cd3acbe7f1.html

 

[katydid23]

None of the three or four or five links you have provided to the article you are referencing, work. Can you fix? I would like to read the article for myself.

That linked worked earlier. that is where I cut and pasted the quotes from. I just tried and it is not there anymore. Maybe they are updating?

 

[LemonCloud]

I couldn't agree with you more. All I get from some of these comments is that his behaviour warranted the punishment he received. This angers me as it makes me think of a case here in Toronto involving a young man, Sammy Yatim who was shot by a cop, even after he was down, for exposing himself on a streetcar while holding a knife. When he was shot he was alone in the streetcar, nowhere close to the cop. After he was shot repeatedly and lay on the ground unconscious and dying, they tasered him. And yet, people believe this behaviour warranted being shot to death. It's not right.

Sorry this was supposed to be in response to gardenlady's last reply,

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Yes, that would have been a better scenario. I agree. But I hate that people are trying to make Brown out to be an innocent choir boy, and make the officer out to be a KKK member looking to shoot a black kid. THAT IS NOT HOW THIS HAPPENED.

Wilson was blindsided by this 6 ft 3 inch robbery suspect. And once that physical assault happened, the officer was fighting for his life. It pisses me off that people ignore that part of the scenario.

Fighting for his life against no weapons?

So, when MB put his hands up, wouldn't that be a perfect time to hold your weapon on him as you call for back up so they can cuff this big, scary dude?

Come on each behaved badly. The officer should have used restraint and not empty this damn weapon into a young man who was in surrender position..

That's like holding out the white flag of surrender and they get bombed anyway..

 

[Gardenlady]

Yes, that would have been a better scenario. I agree. But I hate that people are trying to make Brown out to be an innocent choir boy, and make the officer out to be a KKK member looking to shoot a black kid. THAT IS NOT HOW THIS HAPPENED.

Wilson was blindsided by this 6 ft 3 inch robbery suspect. And once that physical assault happened, the officer was fighting for his life. It pisses me off that people ignore that part of the scenario.

I have never painted MB as an innocent choir boy, figured he probably wasn't, but that is and was irrelevant to me because it isn't only saints and angels who can be victims of crime.

I said earlier that if people in the community, before the release of the tape, assumed he was an angel, then the worst they were guilty of was believing a grieving parents perception of their son, and giving dude the benefit of the doubt. Sure there are people who think the video is trumped up - but that's not surprising either; <mod snip>. :crazy:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simply Caustic]

The autopsy should clear up the allegations that he was shot while surrendering. If it does back that up, then I'm open to considering this wasn't reasonable force. If the autopsy backs up the claims, I'm going to have to reevaluate my position.
Until that time, I'm inclined to believe a police officer wouldn't shoot and kill someone, throwing away his career, his life, etc. unprovoked. That's just my opinion.

In regards to the looting? Sickening. Absolutely disgusting display of opportunistic dregs of society at their very best.

JMO

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[katydid23]

An arrest is due process, not death.

but he ran away and stopped after the first bullet hit his body? Do you not see that an arrest could have been made at that time instead the officer chose to execute him?

How is that okay with anyone?

It could have been anyone's son or daughter..

Shameful act from someone who is to uphold the law, not execute...SMH

I am not happy with the last few shots either. I think that was a bad choice by the officer. But I try and keep in mind what happened in the moments before. I think the cop was just telling a couple of teens to get out of the road, and suddenly he was blindsided as he realised this was a robbery suspect. At that moment they began struggling for the gun, and the cop was punched or kicked in the face. During the struggle, the gun went off, possibly striking the suspect.

At that point, as the suspect was running away, with his hands up, the cop SHOULD HAVE let him go. I agree.

<mod snip>

 

[cady]

Don't officers usually tell suspects that they are under arrest, after they cuff them? Wouldn't a wary officer want to be sure that the suspect was cuffed and disarmed, if necessary, before they "attempt to place (the suspect) in the squad car" (or suv cop car)? How many doors were open on the car? An attempt to place Brown in the car would mean that the passenger door was open, wouldn't it? all very unclear. JMO

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I am not happy with the last few shots either. I think that was a bad choice by the officer. But I try and keep in mind what happened in the moments before. I think the cop was just telling a couple of teens to get out of the road, and suddenly he was blindsided as he realised this was a robbery suspect. At that moment they began struggling for the gun, and the cop was punched or kicked in the face. During the struggle, the gun went off, possibly striking the suspect.

At that point, as the suspect was running away, with his hands up, the cop SHOULD HAVE let him go. I agree.

But this was not a case of a KKK racist cop looking for a black kid to shoot that day. And that is what people tried to make this out to be.

BBM

You never heard me play the race card, so that is irrelevant to me..

 

[katydid23]

Fighting for his life against no weapons?

So, when MB put his hands up, wouldn't that be a perfect time to hold your weapon on him as you call for back up so they can cuff this big, scary dude?

Come on each behaved badly. The officer should have used restraint and not empty this damn weapon into a young man who was in surrender position..

That's like holding out the white flag of surrender and they get bombed anyway..

WE AGREE on that. The last couple shots were probably bad moves on the officers part. But at that point he was probably not thinking too clearly.

 

[Boytwnmom]

but not for domestic use and the US has actually reserved the right to use it in war to protect convoys etc. Many coutries use it for riot control and many people criticize this use because of health effects etc. I have no personal knowledge as I tend to avoid gatherings that result in tear gas use. I also live in a place where peaceful protest is honored & protected. Peaceful being the operative term.

Riot control agents including tear gas and pepper spray are banned in international warfare under both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The CWC defines chemical weapons as “munitions and devices that are designed to cause death or other harm through toxic chemicals” that lead to “death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.” While tear gas and pepper spray, under international law, are banned as a “method of warfare”, there are no restrictions to their domestic use as a “riot control agent.” According to the CWC, “riot control agents” are any chemicals which are not specifically listed in their list of prohibited chemicals and that can cause in humans rapid “sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.” Under Article II Section 9 of the CWC, the use of such chemicals for “law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes” is not prohibited under the Convention.

The quote is from an organization that is organized against the use of tear gas: http://facingteargas.org/bp/35/chemical-weapons-convention.

You might actually want to read your own link

 

[quesarita]

WE AGREE on that. The last couple shots were probably bad moves on the officers part. But at that point he was probably not thinking too clearly.

BBM. I don't see that as a valid excuse. His job gives him the right to carry a gun and the responsibility to be able to maintain a clear enough mind to know when there is actual danger, and when there are other options.

 

[bettybaby00]

The alleged "incident" or "scrapple" is what will be important to determine what happened. Ive seen so many different things, I dont think anyone can say for sure what happened near the car. Ive even seen one scenerio that says the officer opened his door really fast as if to purposely slam into both the walking people. This could have started the scrapple if there even was one.

But regardless of that, I still think it comes down to what happened even after that.
Questions like:
-Was the guy trying to surrender and was just blasted by the officer because the officer lost his temper
from the previous lack of respect the guy demonstrated and/or the previous struggle incident?
-Was the guy raising his hands to surrender?
-Was the guy many feet away?
-Was the guy kneeling or standing?
-Did the guy have his back to the officer?
-Was he totally unarmed with no weapons in his hands?

All these things are important to understand if the shooting was justified or not and it will likely take sworn witness testimony to be able to decide.

The problem with getting witnesses to give sworn statements is a lot of people dont trust LE. Also, they fear their own peers in the community that if they cooperate then there may be backlash against them.
And frankly, I dont blame them for being afraid because those fears are valid fears.

So lets hope any witnesses are brave enough to provide sworn statements if they truly saw what happened.

It seems really difficult to get a handle on the facts in this case.

I'm not sure that these witnesses going on TV and telling their story is helping matters.

I know yesterday the narrative started to include "he was down on his knees with his hands in the air," and now I'm reading that he was shot from above in the forehead.

Witness statements shouldn't be "evolving," as it starts to make me wonder if some might be adding to their statements based on what others are saying?

IDK if this is what is happening or not, but I am finding it hard to understand how his friend initially said, "he was running away," to MB received a shot to the head as the cop was standing over him?

 

[Simply Caustic]

but not for domestic use and the US has actually reserved the right to use it in war to protect convoys etc. Many coutries use it for riot control and many people criticize this use because of health effects etc. I have no personal knowledge as I tend to avoid gatherings that result in tear gas use. I also live in a place where peaceful protest is honored & protected. Peaceful being the operative term.



The quote is from an organization that is organized against the use of tear gas: http://facingteargas.org/bp/35/chemical-weapons-convention.

Indeed, peaceful protests are to be respected. If any agency were to actively obstruct peaceful protest, I would be shouting from the rooftops.

I watched that live feed. That was insanity, last night. It was looting and threats to the news agencies that were filming. It was scary.
Nothing peaceful about looting, and my heart breaks for those business owners. Insurance costs are crippling to small businesses, and this will result in higher rates, if they aren't dropped by their insurance. These owners did nothing wrong, and they were robbed because...Why, exactly? Why is any group entitled to riot?
They aren't. That's why the police force was there, because of riots, to keep the peace. The comments I've read blaming LE for looting (on Twitter) blow my mind.
JMO

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[SwampMama]

It seems apparent that there was a struggle between the officer and MB which resulted in the first shot being fired within the cop car. This would certainly indicate that there was a life and death struggle between the two. Simply put, you cannot put your hands on an officer, resist arrest, physically assault them and go for their gun and assume that you can walk/run off scot free just because your hands are supposedly in the air.

At that point you have just set into motion a very volatile and dangerous situation which can end with you being shot. MB took that risk and sadly for him, it did not end well. His behavior before the shooting was hardly one of a cooperative and law abiding citizen. He brazenly stole, was very aggressive with a clerk, then boldly strode down the middle of the street. He was told to get out of the street by the officer and chose to ignore the order. It's like he was daring someone to confront him. So forgive me if I find it implausible that he was being cooperative and submissive when the cop decided to just go ballistic for no reason.