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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
CoolJ said:
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
Click to expand...
You actually forgot all the felonies Mike Brown committed, which DOES make him dangerous to Officer Wilson and the public at large.
 
Elley Mae said:
bbm, Just confused about the standard gun that uses specific type of cartridges. What makes it specific?
Click to expand...

I would assume that the police departments buy and provide the on duty ammo for the officers so they likely all use the same cartridges, or at least the same type even if size varies.

Course that doesn't mean someone ELSE couldn't buy some (of that same type) and leave shell casings around too.
 
Elley Mae said:
I feel like that some people would like to think that..... Like, I could walk up to a cop in a patrol car and Biotch slap him and then casually walk away. I don't know maybe I'm not understanding what is expected to happen when one does such a think as to disobey an officer and then to get physical w/said officer and then get upset when the officer then proceeds to shoot at you, because of what you have done. Maybe there is a place like that, I would like to know where though. hmmm

Maybe someone could start a business... Like classes on How to interact with Law Enforcement. hmmm
Click to expand...

bbm

^^^^^ that!
I've been thinking that too.
 
Truthy said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
snip
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
Click to expand...
 
Elley Mae said:
Did I read/see that there was gun fire in the area just after this happened before LE was finished with the area.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's what took them so long to secure the scene so the crime scene/forensic peeps could get there.

Add to that the bystanders chanting 'kill the police'
 
Elley Mae said:
I believe it.
We have become the parents of a cat. It showed up and took over to tell the truth. Anyway, the day it showed up my hubby says, there's a cat outside and it is black and white and has beautiful blue eyes. I walked to the door, looked out and there sat a cat, black and white with yellow eyes.
Click to expand...

Patting Elley Mae on the head....

There there...one does not parent a cat, that cat owns you..trains you to do his bidding!
:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JLSChook said:
You actually forgot all the felonies Mike Brown committed, which DOES make him dangerous to Officer Wilson and the public at large.
Click to expand...

Well I guess my point here is that has yet to be decided. That may be your opinion, but I'm not so sure the law is that clear.
 
Truthy said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you are talking about an 'immediate threat TO THE OFFICER' and I am talking about an 'immediate threat TO THE PUBLIC'. Anyone who suddenly, with ,no provocation, attacks an officer and struggles over his weapon, is considered an immediate threat to public's safety.

If the law needs changing, then so be it. Maybe the protestors should be targeting the law they want changed, and not unfairly targeting the officer. Right now, they have been chanting for his death. They are demanding he be fired and arrested immediately, even demanding he be found guilty.

THAT is what I consider unjust. I have no problem reconsidering the legislation. Although in this particular case, I see a valid reason for the officer to have used lethal force. If in fact, MB bum rushed the officer and shoved him back into his vehicle and punched him in the face, and grappled over the gun, then OW was justified in using any means necessary to stop him from running amok. jmo
 
CoolJ said:
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
Click to expand...

The urgent threat had nothing to do with him walking down the middle of the street, disobeying orders to move. That would have been handled with a warning, perhaps a misdemeanor citation.

The urgent threat to public safety comes when the officer is blindsided, shoved into his vehicle, pummeled, and has to struggle over his gun. At that point, this perp has become an urgent threat to public safety. He is not going to be able to just run back to Grandma's with his cigarillos. He escalated the incident way beyond misdemeanor status.

From what i have read here, the law does back the actions of the officer. A fleeing felon that poses a public safety risk can be met with lethal force.

My son wears a gun and a vest, working for homeland security on a naval base. He said that if someone blindsided him like that, he would have to assume the person was out of control, either drunk/high or mentally unbalanced, AND/OR was violently opposed to law enforcement and would pose a risk to anyone they came across. There is no way he would let such a person just run away without being pursued vigorously.

What if OW had just sat in his vehicle waiting for back up, and MB forced his way into an apartment and assaulted/killed someone in an effort to escape? Or jacked a car and harmed someone? You don't think the locals would have been demanding OW's badge for allowing that to happen? They would be saying "WHY DIDNT HE PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY? Don't black people matter to the FPD? " IMO :facepalm:
 
CoolJ said:
Well I guess my point here is that has yet to be decided. That may be your opinion, but I'm not so sure the law is that clear.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not my opinion, it's the law. I didn't make the laws. Lol

There is nothing unclear about Tennessee vs. Garner. Sure, one can interpret it in any way one sees fit, I suppose, but it won't change what the law is.
 
Truthy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you discuss reevaluating as the situation evolves. I think that is what happened during the 2 or 3 second 'pause' in the shooting. OW took a second to reassess the threat, and if MB was only 3 to 6 feet away, and still moving forward, then he would still be considered a physical threat. And the final shots followed.
 
CHERIE.T said:
excellent post
Click to expand...

Elley Mae said:
I believe it.
We have become the parents of a cat. It showed up and took over to tell the truth. Anyway, the day it showed up my hubby says, there's a cat outside and it is black and white and has beautiful blue eyes. I walked to the door, looked out and there sat a cat, black and white with yellow eyes.
Click to expand...

Well, he got 2 out of three right..... and common sense dictates if 6 out of 7 witnesses say shots were fired toward his back while fleeing, I cannot think of a single reason to discount that. Little details like eye color aren't going to matter if you have a plethroa of witnesses agreeing to the basics of it. IMHguess, they will find he shot towards MB's back as he fled. Whether or not they can make a justification for it, is another matter. Just guessing here, same as all of you.
MOO.
 
katydid23 said:
But you are talking about an 'immediate threat TO THE OFFICER' and I am talking about an 'immediate threat TO THE PUBLIC'. Anyone who suddenly, with ,no provocation, attacks an officer and struggles over his weapon, is considered an immediate threat to public's safety.

If the law needs changing, then so be it. Maybe the protestors should be targeting the law they want changed, and not unfairly targeting the officer. Right now, they have been chanting for his death. They are demanding he be fired and arrested immediately, even demanding he be found guilty.

THAT is what I consider unjust. I have no problem reconsidering the legislation. Although in this particular case, I see a valid reason for the officer to have used lethal force. If in fact, MB bum rushed the officer and shoved him back into his vehicle and punched him in the face, and grappled over the gun, then OW was justified in using any means necessary to stop him from running amok. jmo
Click to expand...

BBM

In my opinion an immediate threat to the public would have to mean to someone in the immediate area. Someone who for one reason or another OW had probable reason to believe MB might hurt them. There has to be someone who is actually in danger. It is not an open ended bounty on this fleeing felon in case he MAY hurt somebody somewhere... If so, how long would this last? The rest of the day? Weeks?
Nope, I do not think that is how the law looks at it.
 
JLSChook said:
Again, it's not my opinion, it's the law. I didn't make the laws. Lol

There is nothing unclear about Tennessee vs. Garner. Sure, one can interpret it in any way one sees fit, I suppose, but it won't change what the law is.
Click to expand...

It is not the law that needs interpreting. We know it means OW would have to have a probable fear for his life or someone else's.

What needs interpreting is whether or not OW had probable reason to believe that. It is your opinion he did, that is fine, I respect that. It is not however, a fact.
 
K_Z said:
Well, I happen to think MB clearly meets the definition of an "immediate danger" to the community. He had just robbed and assaulted 10 min before, then assaulted a LEO inside his patrol vehicle, and struggled over the LEO's gun. That's pretty much an "immediate danger" to me, if I were a jury member.

And OW didn't shoot a "hailstorm of bullets." Somewhere between 6-10 shots, measured and aimed as best as he was able in his head/ face injured situation. And did not empty his weapon. I think he showed remarkable restraint throughout the entire encounter.

Oh-- and letting a violent suspect have a second chance at taking your gun wouldn't be a wise move for the officer, or the bystanders in the immediate area.
Click to expand...

BBM - Oh no...remember....he was supposed to go back and get his taser, right??? LOL!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 228 more.
Total: 3,762 (members: 229, guests: 3,533)

Online statistics

Members online
229
Guests online
3,533
Total visitors
3,762
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,257
Messages
17,966,383
Members
228,734
Latest member
TexasCuriousMynd
Back
Top