Re: Michael Brown

[Epoetker]

And the officer had no reason to suspect a felony,

While bleeding from a fractured eye socket...

or that Mr. Brown had on his person a deadly weapon,

Well yeah, because Brown was going for his gun last he checked.

or that he might endanger a life unless arrested without delay.

People who habitually walk down the middle of the streets and assault police officers for telling them not to walk down the middle of the streets have a very high likelihood of being these things called gang members, Jimmy.

Officer Wilson had no right to be shooting at an unarmed man in flight, period!

And he never did, as far as I can see.

[Juvenal]

Also, the crowd that killed the two white boys in the "Another racial killing" thread -- those blacks were ALSO "unarmed" -- they beat, stomped, kicked and punched the kid to death.

Your sources disagreed on the cause of Denton Ward's death, which occurred two and a half years ago, the details of which are being reported by highly questionable sources.

Freepers, CP? I mean, seriously. They make NRO and Breitbart look like choir boys.

[Epoetker]

Your sources disagreed on the cause of Denton Ward's death, which occurred two and a half years ago, the details of which are being reported by highly questionable sources.

Freepers, CP? I mean, seriously. They make NRO and Breitbart look like choir boys.

Why is there a Chicago liberal on my beloved forum pretending to be the honest broker?

[Darth Executor]

While bleeding from a fractured eye socket...

The exact injury he had hasn't actually been officially confirmed.

[Cow Poke]

Your sources disagreed on the cause of Denton Ward's death, which occurred two and a half years ago, the details of which are being reported by highly questionable sources.

Freepers, CP? I mean, seriously. They make NRO and Breitbart look like choir boys.

Calm yourself, Jesse -- the trial is going on THIS WEEK, and will be reported. The fact remains that it was a mob of blacks who killed this young white man.

[Cow Poke]

The altercation between Michael Brown and the officer, especially if Brown went for the officer's gun, would probably be a felony, wouldn't it?

They could easily call it battery on a police officer, or even attempted capital murder, yes.

[Cow Poke]

And the officer had no reason to suspect a felony,

If, indeed, Brown accosted Wilson and tried to get his duty weapon, the officer has EVERY RIGHT to suspect a felony.

or that Mr. Brown had on his person a deadly weapon,

That's not a requirement for deadly force to be used a a defense, Jimmy. Note the little word "or" repeatedly used throughout the cited law.

or that he might endanger a life unless arrested without delay. Officer Wilson had no right to be shooting at an unarmed man in flight, period!

Kinda like, you can keep your doctor, period?

Jimmy,

The Grand Jury will determine if Wilson acted illegally.
If they believe he acted illegally, they will "true bill" the charge, and it will be referred for prosecution.
If Wilson is found guilty of illegal conduct, there will be a sentencing phase of the trial.
MEANWHILE, he is presumed innocent by decent and honest people, until proven otherwise.

Please note that your baseless charge of "all those people" in the Bundy standoff needing to "be in jail right now" was ALSO way off the mark, and did not result in ANY of them being arrested. By the way, what, exactly, was the charge on which they should all be arrested and in jail?

Why don't you just sit back and watch the news, and see how this turns out.

The FACT is that we don't know for sure whether Wilson was attacked as brutally as reported -- I don't know that he was, and you don't know that he wasn't. And that will become a crucial part of any prosecution.

[rogue06]

Poking a hole in the claim that an unarmed man isn't dangerous. Or being high on pot means he won't be violent

Source: Police: Naked man damaged cars, kicked officer at hemp festival

A naked man had to be sedated at a hemp festival in southern Oregon after police said he damaged cars, started fights and kicked an officer.

Oregon State Police troopers responded to the Jefferson State Hemp Expo in Grants Pass at 12:30 a.m. Sunday.

The first troopers at the scene were led to a grass field where four men were restraining the suspect, who was described as naked, combative and agitated, on the ground.

The suspect was identified as 27-year-old Timothy Seaux of Grants Pass. According to jail records, Seaux is 6'3" and 250 pounds.

A witness pointed out one vehicle in the parking lot that had sustained heavy damage. Witnesses said Seaux had caused the damage while two frightened women were sitting inside the car.

Police attempted to take Seaux into custody, but investigators said he kneed and kicked a trooper several times. Following a struggle, troopers got Seaux into the back of a patrol car, but police said he continued to kick violently.



Source

Story continues at link

© Copyright Original Source

Fortunately there were multiple people there to handle Seaux rather than a one-on-one confrontation otherwise things could have turned out very differently for him.

[One Bad Pig]

hat tip to Yahoo (that bastion of conservative news) for front-paging this:

Source: The Week

Why isn't the media covering the killing of an unarmed white youth by a black police officer?

The case of Michael Brown, the unarmed, black teenager shot and killed by a white police officer, continues to make headlines weeks after the incident sparked riots and outrage in Ferguson, Missouri, and prompted a national debate.

Meanwhile, the case of Dillon Taylor, an unarmed, white 20-year-old shot and killed by a black policeman outside a 7-Eleven in Utah has received virtually no media coverage beyond local news reports.

The negligible coverage of the Taylor case by the mainstream media prompted many conservative critics to address the racial double standard. The Washington Times reports: "Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh blamed the discrepancy between the two cases on 'the liberal world view' that portrays whites as oppressors and blacks as victims."

The Times noted that CNN news host Jake Tapper acknowledged the discrepancy between the two cases, and noted that "the press often undercovers such topics as inner-city violence and the high rates of black-on-black crime."

According to Tapper, though, the Brown case is more newsworthy because of the national reaction it sparked, though some question whether the excessive media coverage of the violent protests actually served to fuel them.
- - Teresa Mull

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

and ANOTHER reason Wilson might not be found guilty of shooting an unarmed man.....

Let's look at one of the claims of the nutters: To wit, that Johnson drove up REALLY CLOSE to the TWO men, one of whom was 6'4" and 300 lbs, and chose THAT one to reach out his window and grab by the neck, trying to pull him INTO the front seat of the police unit with him. If Wilson REALLY DID that, the defense could be......

































.... "not guilty by reason of INSANITY".

[JimL]

The altercation between Michael Brown and the officer, especially if Brown went for the officer's gun, would probably be a felony, wouldn't it?

Even if the officer claims that to be the case, 2 weeks after the event mind you; Officer Wilson never filed an incident report, and such was never attested to by the police, he can not use deadly force even on a fleeing felon unless there is reason to suspect that he is an immediate threat to others including other officers. The only defense I can see for the officer is the one that the defense will most probably use, if it even goes to trial, and that is a big if, which is that Mr. Brown went racing headlong into the bullets in order to attack the officer and the officer was in fear for his life and if you can believe that, then i have a bridge to sell if you are interested. Anyway, all of the eyewitness testimony to date disputes that description of the facts.

[Psychic Missile]

The British police on armed routine patrol

Source: BBC News

In a little-noticed move, a small number of police officers are now routinely carrying sidearms while on patrol in parts of the mainland UK. How did this come about, and does it alter the relationship between the constabulary and the public?

© Copyright Original Source

Guess what those are on the hips of these Brit coppers! Times, they are a'changin'.

I guess that invalidates historical and ongoing police training and tactics!

Law.

"If it's legal, it must be moral." I see.

There seems to be this strange idea in this thread that, if attacked by an unarmed person*, one is morally obligated to use no weapon or means that the attacker does not himself have available. This is really, really weird.

Also, see here. I really wish people would stop parroting the whole "unarmed" bit.

*In case there is any doubt, note my use of the word if. I am not assuming that Brown attacked Wilson.

I can't resist:

How do you know this?

That idea exists because a police officer should not have their life threatened by an unarmed person. Their training and tools should be more than adequate. There are several countries which do not arm their beat officers with firearms. I don't expect American police officers to not carry a gun. Our geographic location and our history of gun distribution makes an assailant with a firearm an ever-present reality. I do expect American police to use the same tactics used in those countries I mentioned when dealing with unarmed assailants, or indeed any unarmed person. Killing someone should be a last resort. Not a matter of course.

A little while ago people in this thread were saying things like "if a thief broke into my house, I would shoot them". I really don't understand this. Though it might be legal, it is not self defense. Unless threatening harm, implicit or implied, only one's possessions are in danger. I think this ties into the mentality of police carrying guns. The old adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I hope that's the explanation. An alternative is that many people just don't value human life. If imminent harm is not one's criteria for justifiable self-defense, where does one draw the line?

[rogue06]

Even if the officer claims that to be the case, 2 weeks after the event mind you

Actually I heard this within a couple days of the incident

For instance, from August 15

Source: What we know about Michael Brown's shooting

It's a case of he said, he said. The accounts of why a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown on a street in Ferguson, Missouri, on Saturday couldn't be more disparate.

One side says the teenager was surrendering, his hands in the air to show he was unarmed, when the officer opened fire. Authorities counter that Brown attacked the officer in his car and tried to take his gun.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

A couple days prior to the above story the police chief was on the Joy Reid show on MSNBC saying that Brown had tried going for Brown's sidearm.

[robrecht]

Even if the officer claims that to be the case, 2 weeks after the event mind you; Officer Wilson never filed an incident report, and such was never attested to by the police, he can not use deadly force even on a fleeing felon unless there is reason to suspect that he is an immediate threat to others including other officers. The only defense I can see for the officer is the one that the defense will most probably use, if it even goes to trial, and that is a big if, which is that Mr. Brown went racing headlong into the bullets in order to attack the officer and the officer was in fear for his life and if you can believe that, then i have a bridge to sell if you are interested. Anyway, all of the eyewitness testimony to date disputes that description of the facts.

How much of the officer's statement at the time do we know? I don't think the claim that Michael Brown was going for his gun originated 2 weeks after the incident. Can you cite the law or policy that says a violent felon fleeing from the police cannot or should not be shot at unless he poses an imminent threat to police or others? I'm not sure that is the case.

Edited to add:
The story about the struggle for the gun was already mentioned during the initial police press conference, not only mentioned 2 weeks later:

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime...rown/13860601/

[robrecht]

Can you cite the law or policy that says a violent felon fleeing from the police cannot or should not be shot at unless he poses an imminent threat to police or others? I'm not sure that is the case.

Here's a little bit about this question:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/cri...ile_touch=true

Tennessee vs Garner:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=471&page=1

"Where the officer has probable cause to believe that 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, 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 if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given."