MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #15

[Footwarrior]

bbm, what does this mean?

FPD officers are issued a standard service weapon. These firearms use a specific type of cartridge. The shell casings found on the scene were all from that type of cartridge.
<modsnip>

 

[CoolJ]

<mod snip>

This was hashed out a bit back. The second MB struck OW it was/is legal. Why bring up slavery anyway?

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

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

BBM
This is what is up for debate. This is what it boils down to. Evidence thus far points to MB being shot while his back was facing OW (substantiated by numerous eye witnesses). The question becomes did OW have probable cause to believe that MB posed a significant threat to him or others? I understand he has a tough job, but I whole heartedly believe he had other options at this point. The criteria for killing an unarmed man has got to be more stringent than what appears to have happened here. IMO, JMO, MOO

 

[Footwarrior]

Did I read/see that there was gun fire in the area just after this happened before LE was finished with the area.

There were reports of gunfire a few blocks away, not inside the crime scene tape.

 

[tlcya]

You are trying to read too much into a word choice. Police weapons use a certain type of cartridge. The ones found at the scene were all consistent with police weapons. It is a good assumption that they all came from Wilson's firearm, because he is the only person that is known to have discharged his weapon.

It might be interesting to look over the available photos and see if we can spot the cartridges.

I know some members have given that a stab. To me it is really not a huge factor whether OW emptied his clip or did not. If he reasonably believed he needed to apprehend MB using deadly force the number of shots it took him to do that is not terribly relevant in my examination.

What is most important to me is the stuff we do not have much reliable info on and that is the struggle at the car. Who initiated it, which party did what when, etc. Those are the factors I am most interested in.

 

[katydid23]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html

Our varying take-aways after reading this or any article reflects the differing ways eye/ear witnesses remember a crime imo. What immediately caught my attention was the landscaper's description of MB's 30 min. conversation as "rambling". I hope MB's complete tox screen clearly suggests why MB made the bad choices he did that day.

ETA: Another important thing to me was the witness saying DW was backing up as he fired some of the shots.

BBM

Totally agree. No way that the officer would be backing up while firing unless he felt that there was a continued threat of MB reaching him physically, imo.

 

[Truthy]

[/B]

BBM

This is something that confuses me as well. We have numerous witnesses to this incident. Almost all of which have stated that MB was shot while running away. Yet, those in support of FPD version of events (even though there are no witnesses to this side of the story) immediately pick apart each of the witnesses statements without fail. Why is it so hard for people to believe MB was shot while his back was towards OW? I don't get it.

It's troubling that so many people find the obviously biased "Josie" more credible than the vast majority of witnesses. It's a stretch.
The thing is- this shooting at his back while fleeing explains why so many people immediately thought it was excessive force. So many people act like they can't understand that reaction, because it is now "legal".

But they will find a lot of people who think there maybe moral, as well as public safety issues. And a lot of people who were unaware of the newer "fleeing felon" law. SO, it completely makes sense that people would be upset by shots fired at the back. That was a big no no on the NYPD back in my brothers day. A LEO would have a lot of explaining to do if he fired off some many shots in a busy area.

 

[CoolJ]

It's troubling that so many people find the obviously biased "Josie" more credible than the vast majority of witnesses. It's a stretch.
The thing is- this shooting at his back while fleeing explains why so many people immediately thought it was excessive force. So many people act like they can't understand that reaction, because it is now "legal".

But they will find a lot of people who think there maybe moral, as well as public safety issues. And a lot of people who were unaware of the newer "fleeing felon" law. SO, it completely makes sense that people would be upset by shots fired at the back. That was a big no no on the NYPD back in my brothers day. A LEO would have a lot of explaining to do if he fired off some many shots in a busy area.

That Josie witness is a joke IMO. Could have been absolutely anyone in America calling in to that radio show.

 

[Truthy]

[/B]

BBM

Totally agree. No way that the officer would be backing up while firing unless he felt that there was a continued threat of MB reaching him physically, imo.

I can totally see the need to diagram everyone's position in this case! Very hard from some angles to know who was moving closer to who, especially if you're concentrating on what movemnts their upper bodies are making. MOO.

 

[katydid23]

<mod snip> An act may be legal, but still not be right or moral. If Missouri gives law enforcement the unrestricted right to shoot at a fleeing felon or even a suspected felon, that law should also be changed.

A more reasonable standard is to restrict the use of lethal force to situations where the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or severe injury.

So if the officer was doing something legal, would you want him to be arrested because you think he was immoral and doing something that was not 'right' ?

In my opinion, MB DID in fact pose an immediate threat to the public. He assaulted a little old man, then walked down the middle of a busy street, blocking traffic, refused a request to move, and then assaulted an officer, and struggled w/him over his weapon. If he ran away, he might have jacked a car or taken a hostage to try and escape arrest. It was OW's job to prevent that from happening.

 

[Truthy]

That Josie witness is a joke IMO. Could have been absolutely anyone in America calling in to that radio show.

Yet many seem to have bought it- hook line and sinker. Me? I view everyone with a side eye glance, LOL. Every witness, every cop till all the evidence and statements are in.
That's how I roll.

 

[tlcya]

It is my belief that the stray bullet which is alleged to have lodged in the siding/trim area of nearby ground floor apartment was the bullet which was fired at the car struggle. If that shot flew while the struggle for the gun was taking place then I don't see how the officer can be said to have been jeopardizing public safety.

Unless things happened as DJ stated and the rogue cop pulled a gun unprovoked while pulling a man much larger than he into his car to do so, that shot was not under the officer's strict control, but was instead a possible misfire that happened while involved in a life or death struggle for his gun.

And if the struggle at the car happened as I think is more likely, MB sucker punched the officer and then went for the officer's gun or saw the officer going for it and decided to try to wrest it from him, well then all that came after seems perfectly justified in my mind.

It's not as if the street was crowded with passerby or a block party/bbq was in full swing. If there had been we would have a lot more witnesses and not just to the shooting but to the events which led up to it (ie. car struggle tussle serious confrontation altercation I forget what Crump and Co. are referring to it as this week.).

 

[katydid23]

Once Brown has disengaged from Wilson and started to flee, he no longer poses an immediate threat to officer Wilson. If Brown was armed and shooting back at Wilson, the threat would stll exist.

He poses an immediate and urgent threat to the public at large. he had assaulted, without provocation, two people in the past 15 minutes. One while committing a robbery. How did OW know he want going to jack a car or take a hostage while fleeing?

 

[CHERIE.T]

Phillip Walker had no way to properly evaluate the situation to determine if MB was a threat to the officer, so if I heard that as a jury member, I would have to discard pretty much all of his testimony. Phillip Walker had no way to know if MB or DJ was armed, or not. It's clear to me Phillip Walker made up his mind about the situation once he "heard" that MB was unarmed, after the fact. IMO. I can believe Phillip Walker was confused, though. That would have been a confusing, frightening situation to come upon. There's a lot of "heresay" and opinion in that quote from PW, IMO, that he would not be permitted to testify to in court, if he were called as a witness. IMO. And I think deposition and cross examination of PW from 2 competent attorneys would be a very difficult situation for PW's words to hold up to what he has claimed in his opinions above. IMO.

excellent post

 

[Elley Mae]

FPD officers are issued a standard service weapon. These firearms use a specific type of cartridge. The shell casings found on the scene were all from that type of cartridge.

I am rather amazed that you don't already know this.

bbm, Just confused about the standard gun that uses specific type of cartridges. What makes it specific?

 

[Truthy]

The bum rush already happened, at the very start of the incident. The bum rush happened when, imo, MB shoved OW back into the vehiicle and began punching him in the face. Then they grappled over the gun, and MB's fate was sealed.

Because of that initial 'bum rush', OW had the legal right to use lethal force to stop the escaping suspect, imo.

And the shot at the back was NOT the first shot. The first shot went off in the vehicle when they struggled over the gun.

IIRC, the threat was usually reavaluated as the "situation evolves". And when someone is running away, it can be a game changer. Not sure how they evaluate this within the newer laws, but to say you can kill someone who is no way an immediate threat and running away? IMHO, that is a law that needs changing.
That is the crux of why people thought it was unjust, in case anyone needs clarification.

 

[nothingnew]

There were reports of gunfire a few blocks away, not inside the crime scene tape.

Yes, that would be "in the area". I think the "inside the crime scene tape" issue was MB family members.

 

[CoolJ]

He poses an immediate and urgent threat to the public at large. he had assaulted, without provocation, two people in the past 15 minutes. One while committing a robbery. How did OW know he want going to jack a car or take a hostage while fleeing?

I disagree. I also have a feeling the law will disagree as well. An immediate an urgent threat would be someone who is armed, has a bomb strapped to their body etc.. Not someone walking down the middle of the road and disobeying a cop. IMO, JMO, MOO

 

[Truthy]

Investigators will seprate out what Walker saw, from what he felt about it. This happens with every witness in every criminal case. They have to focus on the actual events that day- it's not a reason to dismiss crucial eye witness testimony. It never has been. MOO.

 

[tlcya]

I personally have not heard or read the "josie" account because I have no idea if she is who she represents herself to be. That is not a witness. At best it is a well meaning friend who should have kept her mouth shut. At worst she is some coocoo for coco puffs troll who made up a story to get on the radio.

My opinions about what happened at the car are based in my own common sense and what little has been released by the police chief as I can only assume his statements are based on the account he was given by the officer and supported by evidence. until I can see the evidence myself that is what I have to go on. What the chief says occurred.

 

[CoolJ]

IIRC, the threat was usually reavaluated as the "situation evolves". And when someone is running away, it can be a game changer. Not sure how they evaluate this within the newer laws, but to say you can kill someone who is no way an immediate threat and running away? IMHO, that is a law that needs changing.
That is the crux of why people thought it was unjust, in case anyone needs clarification.

Excellent post Truthy!
But don't let the narrative around here fool you. A Cop cannot kill someone who is not an immediate threat and running away. That is not what the "fleeing suspect" laws stated. Quite the opposite actually.