MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #20

[reedus23]

IMO it doesn't hinge on just the part where Wilson and Brown are face to face. It was all one continuous event for Wilson. Legally, if he was in fear...the shoot was justified.
Wilson had a sworn duty to apprehend or stop Brown by any means necessary after he was assaulted & punched in the face.


It's truly a shame Brown is dead. His mom worked so hard to see him graduate, was so hopeful he would go off to college. Brown made deadly mistakes that day.

Landscaper guys video...one gave a very detailed interview to the local paper there. Maybe someone else can link it for you. He states, Wilson was backing up while shooting and brown was moving towards him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not if that fear was unreasonable.

 

[Oceans]

That's probably very true. Now the question of whether it was justified killing him. Even assuming all of that is true, had he surrendered himself to arrest or had he continued to pose a threat.

Question about the failure to obey the officer's directions. And Lambchop, please snip this portion if this isn't the thread for it but it seems to be germaine and it's something that has been eating at me ever since the first time people started saying that if an officer gives you an order, you obey it. What about Rosa Parks refusing to leave the designated white section of the bus? She refused the bus driver and the officers order that she move. Should she have obeyed that order and stood up? I do get it is such a different situation than MB's situation, so I'm just talking about in general terms when such a statement is made that one should always obey an officer's order. But because I recognize it has no bearing to MB's case, please snip if needed. I'm really just curious in the discussion on it and this might not be the forum for that.

Rosa Parks was not seated in the white section of the bus. And she was NOT the first person to resist bus segregation. But she was the best candidate according to the NAACP (see below!).

IMO, the NAACP as well as Sharpton & Co saw a good possibility to use the Michael Brown case in a similar fashion.

Wiki:

On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Parks was not the first person to resist bus segregation. Others had taken similar steps, including Irene Morgan in 1946, Sarah Louise Keys in 1955, and the members of the Browder v. Gayle lawsuit (Claudette Colvin, Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith) who were arrested in Montgomery months before Parks. NAACP organizers believed that Parks was the best candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience in violating Alabama segregation laws, although eventually her case became bogged down in the state courts while the Browder v. Gayle case succeeded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not if that fear was unreasonable.

How threatened would you or the average person feel if after being punched in the face and tried to take your gun ...by a 6'4" 300 pound man....then man came at you a second time?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reedus23]

The bolded part is not true, as I have demonstrated several times in these threads with all his quotes and dates in context.

Once they came forward with the robbery video (as requested), the chief was consistent in his statements that Wilson did not know they were suspects when he *initially* stopped them, and he added that Wilson realized they matched the description during the encounter.



Regarding the underlined part, with all due respect, reedus, I would appreciate it kindly if, instead of continuing to say that as if it were "a fact" (your exact terms a few nights ago), you clarified that it is just your disbelief in what the chief says, especially since it's based on your admitted inability to either understand or relinquish doubt in the explanations of the timestamps we've given.

It's cool to disagree with me! lol, please just represent it as an opinion?

Bottom line: The chief said twice that Wilson thought MB could have been the suspect after the initial contact. He never went back on that.

I believe the chief based on:

A. My experience
B. His placing his word on the line on a significant issue after a week of interviews (not something like possibly mistaking yards vs feet in the immediate chaos of flying info.)

... And if that were not enough, then the lack of outcry by the Brown's attorneys or FBI, or anyone else other than peeps talking online.

Fair enough. The fact is that the report includes an entry at 7:00 that evening saying something along the lines of no subject found fitting the description. It is my opinion that until FPD themselves come out and explain this themselves that that record does not jive with anyone within the FPD having claimed to know MB matched the description at any time prior to 7:00.

 

[reedus23]

Si. (And now I have the Rams schedule showing up in my search history! Oy! The things we have to do for the sake of accuracy on this site).

I must be slap happy. Lost my soda yet again.

 

[reedus23]

Whew! Looks like I landed in a hot zone tonight! Lol I have a lot to catch up on, but thanks to everyone for all honest posts, from either "side", and to LambChop for all her hard work and patience herding us cats! :grouphug:

I don't think it's a hot zone. At least I hope not. Just good discussion. And absolutely agree about Lambchop and all the mods.

 

[reedus23]

BBM

Umm, NO!

Please don't.

lol I'm gonna bet I get more "Yes...please do." If it means we can discuss the distance though, I would. I would just like some consensus from everyone on where I'm measuring from and to. Don't wanna go do it and have everyone tell me I measured the wrong distances.

 

[reedus23]

Then I ask you, what do you think MB would have done if he had been able to get Officer Wilson's gun?

I'm not questioning the initial shot in the vehicle and whether it was justified based on what we know. But that right to use deadly force doesn't go on forever. It ends when the person surrenders himself to arrest.

 

[katydid23]

Not if that fear was unreasonable.

That fear was not unreasonable if he had just fought for his very life, 45 seconds earlier!

 

[katydid23]

I'm not questioning the initial shot in the vehicle and whether it was justified based on what we know. But that right to use deadly force doesn't go on forever. It ends when the person surrenders himself to arrest.

But there will be questions if he was indeed surrendering.

 

[katydid23]

Fair enough. The fact is that the report includes an entry at 7:00 that evening saying something along the lines of no subject found fitting the description. It is my opinion that until FPD themselves come out and explain this themselves that that record does not jive with anyone within the FPD having claimed to know MB matched the description at any time prior to 7:00.

But that is just ONE report. That is not signed off on by every single officer. Maybe that officer that signed that was on another call and never saw the body lying in the road that day. It really does not mean that NO ONE recognized him as the suspect.

 

[reedus23]

You keep ignoring the fact that MB had tried to murder OW in the car moments earlier. That makes him more dangerous than your average miscreant.
And that makes him an immediate threat to the publics safety. He attacked a police officer with no provocation. That was enough for the officer to see him as a dangerous threat to the public.

Instead of miscreant, substitute Bundy or Saddam Hussein or John Allen Muhhamad or Timothy McVeigh or whomever. Certainly threats to the public, but not an articulable threat at the time taken into custody. I get that that also rolls into did they surrender themselves or were they continuing to be a threat. Ultimately, to state the obvious, that is what the case will come down to.

 

[reedus23]

Thanks for the clarification.

If what you opine is indeed true (not implying in any way that you are untruthful); I am flabbergasted, or utterly naïve.

I've always considered myself relatively intelligent, I don't know what to say (or rather type). My college roomie ended up marrying the District Attorney. Last election he declined to run again, because their children were approaching their teen years and he wanted to focus more time on his family. We all ended up in the same county, and remain friends. This may sound dumb but what you opined never occurred to me.

Well, in fairness, my friend could also be full of bravado. I do admire him though. He could have made ten times as much money if he had left McCulloch's office and started doing criminal defense work. But for attorneys at least, he has chosen to make a pittance and continue his work prosecuting cases.

 

[katydid23]

Jdstl ‏@Jdstl314 7m
The Protesters may not be the ones who disrupt the game. #NoJusticeNoFootball #Ferguson @OpFerguson pic.twitter.com/Yzi4z2f5wo



So now they are saying the players are going to disrupt the game. I kind of doubt that. The way NFL players are dropping like flies from the rolls.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Jdstl ‏@Jdstl314 7m
The Protesters may not be the ones who disrupt the game. #NoJusticeNoFootball #Ferguson @OpFerguson pic.twitter.com/Yzi4z2f5wo



So now they are saying the players are going to disrupt the game. I kind of doubt that. The way NFL players are dropping like flies from the rolls.

Stand a better chance of a NFL football player getting pregnant!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reedus23]

I wonder why St. Louis County never uses a preliminary hearing in murder cases? Is it because they have an advantage in getting an indictment when using the Grand Jury compared to a preliminary hearing?

I'm not a lawyer but I think that's why. What happens if the prosecutors aren't inclined to get an indictment? Can they use their advantage in the Grand Jury process to sway the jurors to not indict?

JMO

In all honesty, there is probably a multitude of reasons. The GJ process certainly does seem to be more advantageous for a prosecuting attorney. I could be wrong, but I believe in a preliminary hearing, OW's attorneys would get the chance to actually cross examine any witnesses. I'm sure there are other valid reasons as well but I'm not coming up with anything off the top of my head.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I'm not questioning the initial shot in the vehicle and whether it was justified based on what we know. But that right to use deadly force doesn't go on forever. It ends when the person surrenders himself to arrest.

If we are to assume that MB was trying to surrender after he allegedly assaulted officer Wilson, MB should have not moved at all.

Any movement by MB could have been perceived by officer Wilson as a continuation of the previous attack by MB. That would make the police shooting a justified one.

JMO.

 

[reedus23]

Operation Ferguson ‏@OpFerguson Sep 13
Sunday September 21 at 11:00 AM Ferguson Protest at Edward Jones Dome. There WILL be cyber disruptions to coincide. | #NoJusticeNoFootball


I wonder what they mean by 'cyber disruptions.' Is ANON going to try and hack the stadium or something?

Knowing them they will try and then try to post a message on the big screen. Problem is they'll probably hack into the Denver Bronco's stadium.

 

[Linda7NJ]

In all honesty, there is probably a multitude of reasons. The GJ process certainly does seem to be more advantageous for a prosecuting attorney. I could be wrong, but I believe in a preliminary hearing, OW's attorneys would get the chance to actually cross examine any witnesses. I'm sure there are other valid reasons as well but I'm not coming up with anything off the top of my head.

Where I live, we have both.
Grand jury can be like a dry run...IMO it benefits the prosecution.

Investigative grand jury's are different. This particular GJ seems to be used more like an investigative one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Knowing them they will try and then try to post a message on the big screen. Problem is they'll probably hack into the Denver Bronco's stadium.

Great! The Feds will get involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk