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

[sorrell skye]

People just want to "know the truth" ? People want their truth. Look up the Alfred Wright case. Some people will not accept anything that doesn't agree with their position.

Ya got that right.

Some folks interviewed on the street are claiming that they just "want the truth".

I think some folks do want the truth, but I also have no doubt that some of those folks who claim to "want the truth" only want to hear a version that supports their preconceived conclusions, facts be damned.

 

[tlcya]

I agree and this is going to be the part that we need to determine for sure one way or the other.

JMO
From everything I can gather, it seems to me that after some sort of altercation verbal or physical, that the kid did try to run away and the officer lost his temper and shot him.

If it ends up being in the middle of a struggle, I will be surprised because it would not explain the community going bizerk.

I won't. MOO the community has not gone berserk. Some members in the community are attempting to peacefully ascertain if the officer acted improperly and that if he did nothing gets swept under the rug. That is their right and I support it. A certain element (I will call it what it is, the criminal element) in the community is using this as their excuse to engage in lawless, threatening, dangerous, stupid, destructive behaviors. And THAT element never needs any justification because there isn't one, to go berserk.

that is JMO.

 

[William N]

Mike Brown committed strong-arm robbery of a convenience store. Brown, six feet four and 300 pounds, assaulted the small Asian store clerk. He then tried to murder the cop who stopped him.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Officers immediately tell a suspect to turn around and get on the ground and place their hands were they can see them. If the officer shot him in the back, it would be because he was fleeing. If he shot him in his chest it is because he was approaching him and the officer feared for his safety. Either way, this one will be a justified shooting, imo.

There are more options than that.

 

[cady]

YUP Police chief needs a vacation. He is really bumbling. I understand his advocacy for Wilson, but he is not helping clarify anything. Really incompetent, in my opinion. There are no charges for the robbery, and chief says it is NOT related to the incident, so I doubt that a judge would allow testimony about the robbery to enter the case. Let's get back to the real issue here. Was the killing justified or not? So far, NOT. JMO

 

[LaLaw2000]

ITA. Assaulting a police officer and trying to grab his gun also are felonies. This was no shoplifting incident.

Thanks.
That is cold hard fact whether anyone wants to believe it or not.

MOO

 

[SnoopyDawgDawg]

I am waiting for more info and the results of the investigation before weighing in on this one.

When the shooting first happened I leaned a certain way. Then this new info comes out and I am tending to lean a different way. When more info comes out I may lean back the way I came or a whole nother direction. Too hard to form an opinion for me yet.

:yeahthat:

 

[JLSChook]

LE is allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect, especially if the person is/was violent. In this case, he was violent with the store owner and the officer.

 

[popsicle]

He was unarmed, he had his hands up and was shot in the back in broad daylight. Then, as he turned around he was shot five more times per cnn days ago. total of 7 shots fired. Any real good man/woman cop KNOWS that you never ever shoot someone in the back; or after hands are up. This is not procedure, this is murder. This is overkill. And all day today his Own Chief has stated he did not KNOW about the robbery of cigars.....they were found under his body per cnn. A few boxes of cigars do Not look like or even FEEL like the cold hard steel of a gun. We all know the difference, those of us who are armed. This is murder.

Do we even have the autopsy yet?

 

[MyBelle]

I agree and this is going to be the part that we need to determine for sure one way or the other.

JMO
From everything I can gather, it seems to me that after some sort of altercation verbal or physical, that the kid did try to run away and the officer lost his temper and shot him.

If it ends up being in the middle of a struggle, I will be surprised because it would not explain the community going bizerk.

A police officer has a duty to protect the public. If a suspect in a strong-arm robbery refuses a command to stop and continues to flee, the officer doesn't shoot them because the officer loses his temper, he shoots because it is his job to shoot them so they won't go commit another crime.

 

[LaLaw2000]

During the PC he also said a BOLO had been released.

Yes, and that BOLO would have gone over every radio in every cruiser.

ETA: And also heard on the mic/radio attached to the officers' shoulder.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

LE is allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect, especially if the person is/was violent. In this case, he was violent with the store owner and the officer.

No they are not. Not if they are not armed. They are not allowed to shoot suspects in the back when they are not posing a current and valid threat.

 

[popsicle]

Yes it's the wife's girlfriend. What a rock. I could shake her from here. you just dont do this. What in the world is wrong down in MO? We are quickly finding out A LOT ....as of today. I was typing fast and meant to put friend of the wife. That didn't come out right

That is who she claimed to be.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Actually the chief just said that Wilson saw MB and friend in the street and asked them to get on sidewalk, then when he passed them, " HE MAY HAVE SEEN THE CIGARS AND MAY HAVE THEN PUT IT TOGETHER."
LIVE CNN COVERAGE NOW.
That is not fact that is supposition.

I am sorry, I really don't think that this is going to end up well for this cop. I just don't think this is adding well at all. It stinks to high heaven,

Wolf just took the words out of my mouth..basically it is maddening the information coming out in drips and drabs and not being accurate... It is crazy.

For the record, I will NEVER buy the storyline that this college bound stellar citizen was innocently skipping down the middle of the street to visit granny...when out of nowhere.... a crazy cop began shooting him for no reason....as he stood there with his hands raised...

Anyone that believes that tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

All IMO

 

[JLSChook]

No they are not. Not if they are not armed. They are not allowed to shoot suspects in the back when they are not posing a current and valid threat.

Yes, they are.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e9b5412f-2283-512e-8636-0d2bbe958c5c.html

“The federal courts are very clear that there are times and places where officers are allowed to shoot people in the back when they are running away, even if they are unarmed,” said David Klinger, a criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and expert on police shootings.

Klinger, a former police officer, pointed to the 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court held that “deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

For the record, I will NEVER buy the storyline that this college bound stellar citizen was innocently skipping down the middle of the street to visit granny...when out of nowhere.... a crazy cop began shooting him for no reason....as he stood there with his hands raised...

Anyone that believes that tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

All IMO

I don't believe that either. I don't think any of us do. But to take a life as a cop you have to have cause. I don't see that yet. Not if he had his hands up. Not if he had already been shot once.
I think this guy was not squeaky clean but that is a long way from deserving to be shot dead in a street.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, they are.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e9b5412f-2283-512e-8636-0d2bbe958c5c.html

That is not shooting a suspect in the back. I am sorry I don't think this applies here at all.

 

[sorrell skye]

For the record, I will NEVER buy the storyline that this college bound stellar citizen was innocently skipping down the middle of the street to visit granny...when out of nowhere.... a crazy cop began shooting him for no reason....as he stood there with his hands raised...

Anyone that believes that tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

All IMO

Linda - you have such a way with words.

ETA: This is the narrative that's been promoted from day one. Unfortunately, it's not an accurate narrative.

 

[cady]

Is there any statement so far that Wilson was attempting to arrest Brown? I have not heard that the officer claimed that nor have I heard any other witness say that the heard him tell Brown he was under arrest. And for what. Maybe Wilson told someone that in his interviews, but the good old Chief did not relate that information in the pressers. If Wilson specifically told interviewers that, it would be important to make that clear when someone is stating his position to the press. JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Let me say this, I am still not sure I am on board with this, BUT EVEN If this was the case, once MB was out of the car and fleeing he was no longer a threat. You call for back up and pursue on foot, But you don't just start shooting. That is not policing that is executing.

Maybe this guy was not a good guy, But if he was a safe distance away from the cop and the cop just started shooting and the guy had his hands in the air, Then you arrest him or hold him at gun point while back up arrives. You don't just kill him dead.

Really? Seems to me he was on a crime spree. Strong arm robbery, assaulting a cop, struggled over officers gun....he needed to be stopped. What if he grabbed a kid to use as a shield?
He's obviously a DANGER.

IMO