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

[sorrell skye]

Yes, they are.

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

TY for posting that again. I posted the same info upthread, but it bears repeating.

 

[JLSChook]

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

LOL! Did you read it?

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.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

Brown just committed a strong-arm robbery, assaulted a police officer. Thus, a valid threat to the public.

In upholding the grant of qualified immunity, the court simply quoted the language from Tennessee v. Garner: “The standard for the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects was articulated by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). While noting that ‘the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable,’ the Court held that ‘where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.’ Thus, said the Court, ‘if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used to prevent escape’ and if warning has been given.”
http://patc.com/weeklyarticles/escaping_felon.shtml

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

LOL! Did you read it?

I did read it. But I don't think it applies here. The guy was surrendering. Hands up.

 

[JLSChook]

TY for posting that again. I posted the same info upthread, but it bears repeating.

I know you did and thank you too. I just thought maybe someone missed it. Selective reading, perhaps?

 

[JLSChook]

I did read it. But I don't think it applies here. The guy was surrendering. Hands up.

That's a rumor at this point, I don't believe he was surrendering at all.

 

[Hatfield]

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.

We dont have enough information to know whether THIS officer just lost his temper and shot the guy or not.

Their job is not to shoot unarmed people. I have seen instances where LE had to let the bad guy get away as they pursued them. They dont just shoot unarmed bad guys even if they have committed some sort of crime.
They know they can find them and pick them up later if they get away.

 

[popsicle]

[h=3]How To Roll Swisher Sweet Blunt [/h]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d9Uxq2iTfM

These are the cigars he stole right?

 

[MyBelle]

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

I think fleeing suspects in violent crimes are usually shot in the back....because they are fleeing: Justified shooting.

If a suspect is shot in his chest, he's usually not fleeing, he is instead approaching in a threatening manner: Justified shooting.

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

I believe you are mistaken.

How would law enforcement know he didn't have a weapon? He could have had a gun or knife, he wasn't searched or patted down.

He was a violent and very dangerous man.no matter how anyone tried to polish him, he's still a <mod snip> that looked for trouble and found it. Died as a result.

All IMO

 

[Hatfield]

Brown just committed a strong-arm robbery, assaulted a police officer. Thus, a valid threat to the public.

In upholding the grant of qualified immunity, the court simply quoted the language from Tennessee v. Garner: &#8220;The standard for the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects was articulated by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). While noting that &#8216;the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable,&#8217; the Court held that &#8216;where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.&#8217; Thus, said the Court, &#8216;if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used to prevent escape&#8217; and if warning has been given.&#8221;
http://patc.com/weeklyarticles/escaping_felon.shtml

Thanks for the legal definition.
I am sure each case has to be judged independently against these sort of standards. Based on this, it seems that the officer may have a legal means to justify what he did but only if he said "Stop or I will shoot".

Notice the part about giving warning at the end. It will be interesting if any proof exists of him saying that.

 

[LaLaw2000]

The officer's police report IS his sworn testimony. ABC news has it and showed it on their newscast.

Yes, I agree. To falsify an official police report is grounds for dismissal, plus the officer could be charged with a crime - malfeasance in office.

 

[MyBelle]

We dont have enough information to know whether THIS officer just lost his temper and shot the guy or not.

Their job is not to shoot unarmed people. I have seen instances where LE had to let the bad guy get away as they pursued them. They dont just shoot unarmed bad guys even if they have committed some sort of crime.
They know they can find them and pick them up later if they get away.

He was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery. Police had issued a BOLO and he fit the description. It is the police officer's job to shoot a suspect of a violent crime if they are fleeing his demand to stop. In this case, if Brown had obeyed the officer's instruction to get on the sidewalk and out of the street, he might still be alive. There are consequences for disobeying an officer's instruction.

JMO

 

[Wysteria]

I'm over people rioting and acting like idiots. They need to freaking grow up.

BBM. I completely agree. Although, with all due respect I would have worded the rest of your opinions a bit differently... (your feelings that are not bolded).

I feel that my bolded part should be repeated over and over and over.

I also believe that the rioting had a large part in the decisions made by LE to wait to release the name of the police officer.

I'm just speculating, but I think that these decisions were made for the safety of the police officer involved in the shooting ( and his loved ones as well).

I truly believe that the police officer and his loved ones are in danger at this very moment due to the seething, vicious, insane behavior displayed in the riots. I'm uncertain if a link to the riots is required in order for me to follow the TOS. If so, I will provide one.

 

[Frydaddy]

Because if you are in the position of surrender They are not allowed to shoot you. No matter who you are or what you have done. And at this point we have witnesses that say he was arms up saying don't shoot.

Sorry, went to dinner. First witness, D. Johnson, has been somewhat discredited. Do we know for certain that other witnesses are credible? Is it possible their testimony is based on D. Johnson's (who spoke up very early in the process)? It's extremely possible that "arms up in surrender" is exactly what happened, but I've seen no change in opinion on the matter even though some of Johnson's accounts were obviously not accurate.

 

[popsicle]

FOX2now &#8207;@FOX2now 48s
Trooper in charge of #Ferguson security says there will be a change Saturday protesters will like. via @JeffBernthal

 

[MyBelle]

Thanks for the legal definition.
I am sure each case has to be judged independently against these sort of standards. Based on this, it seems that the officer may have a legal means to justify what he did but only if he said "Stop or I will shoot".

Notice the part about giving warning at the end. It will be interesting if any proof exists of him saying that.

I think the fact there was a struggle over the officer's weapon and it discharged inside his cruiser is proof enough.

 

[popsicle]

FOX2now &#8207;@FOX2now 28s
Questions remain for new police leadership in Ferguson #STL http://ift.tt/1sKko8q

 

[cady]

I think fleeing suspects in violent crimes are usually shot in the back....because they are fleeing: Justified shooting.

If a suspect is shot in his chest, he's usually not fleeing, he is instead approaching in a threatening manner: Justified shooting.

How do we KNOW that the cop was assaulted? The robbery was not an issue at the time of THIS encounter. Is jaywalking a violent crime? What was the probable cause to suspect a violent crime was committed or ABOUT to be committed? Did Brown resist arrest? Was he told that he was under arrest? WE DO NOT KNOW. We need to review reports about the scene. We need to know exactly what Wilson stated to interviewers about what happened in those few minutes. Any information that he learned AFTER the fact does not address the time frame of the incident. There is no clarity at this point in time. JMO

 

[JeannaT]

How do we KNOW that the cop was assaulted? The robbery was not an issue at the time of THIS encounter. Is jaywalking a violent crime? What was the probable cause to suspect a violent crime was committed or ABOUT to be committed? Did Brown resist arrest? Was he told that he was under arrest? WE DO NOT KNOW. We need to review reports about the scene. We need to know exactly what Wilson stated to interviewers about what happened in those few minutes. Any information that he learned AFTER the fact does not address the time frame of the incident. There is no clarity at this point in time. JMO

"Jaywalking" is gilding the lilly a bit, IMHO. They were blocking the roadway on purpose so the cop car and other traffic couldn't proceed.