The Killing of Michael Brown/Ferguson, MO Unrest (interview, independent, compare)

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

In the case above, Supreme Court held that under the Fourth Amendment,
when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may
use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe
that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury
to the officer or others.

I am deducting that since the officer got his weapon back, the possibility of an "unarmed"
man posing a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer (once fled)
might be hard to use/hold up as an argument in this case. Just MY OPINION

After all, at the store where Brown stole the 50 dollar worth box of cigars, Brown did not pistol
whip or beat to death the store clerk. So his "past behavior" that day would have to be
taken into account there too.

You do know the bullet wounds were in the front, right? Was he fleeing running backwards?

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452

Possibly a minor fracture, and sometimes with adrenalin flowing, there is a delay in feeling pain. I speak from experience.

Definitely with adrenalin flowing. Someone could have an arm dangling and would be focused on the shock of killing another human.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

A shooting took place. Multiple eye witnesses said the officer executed the boy.





Am I missing something here???

Yes, all the facts. But go ahead on anyway...

[Blondy]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

Jim Hoft's Unsourced Claim That Officer Darren Wilson Had an "Orbital Blowout Fracture of the Eye Socket" - Little Green Footballs


The entire right wing universe (including Drudge Report) is now screaming about this post by, yes, the Dumbest Man on the Internet again, claiming that anonymous sources told him officer Darren Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket” in a struggle with unarmed teenager Michael Brown: BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack | the Gateway Pundit.

[MOD CUT/copyright violation]
It would definitely help his case if he would have reported the injuries immediately. In the original Police briefing, the Chief did not mention Brown punching the officer. Only later that there was a struggle for the gun.


More food for thought.

Your analysis would be more balanced if you allowed for the fact that the officer may well have been in shock or some other altered state of fight or flight/adrenaline crash response.

[Gtownoe]

Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452

Possibly a minor fracture, and sometimes with adrenalin flowing, there is a delay in feeling pain. I speak from experience.

Would it not be something he let his superiors know immediately? It seems it would be key in putting the use of force in perspective.


Why did the Police chief not immediately let the public know?



Why have ZERO eye witnesses come forward saying Brown punched the officer?



Please answer my questions.

[Gtownoe]

Originally Posted by Blondy

Your analysis would be more balanced if you allowed for the fact that the officer may well have been in shock or some other altered state of fight or flight/adrenaline crash response.

If NONE of the witnesses say Brown punched the officer and your only source is an unverified informant from the potential defendent's camp, there's reason to be skeptical.



I'm breaking down the case.

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

Would it not be something he let his superiors know immediately? It seems it would be key in putting the use of force in perspective.


Why did the Police chief not immediately let the public know?



Why have ZERO eye witnesses come forward saying Brown punched the officer?



Please answer my questions.

Didn't you get the memo, Snitches Get Stiches.

[jw2]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

In the case above, Supreme Court held that under the Fourth Amendment,
when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may
use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe
that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury
to the officer or others.

I am deducting that since the officer got his weapon back, the possibility of an "unarmed"
man posing a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer (once fled)
might be hard to use/hold up as an argument in this case. Just MY OPINION

After all, at the store where Brown stole the 50 dollar worth box of cigars, Brown did not pistol
whip or beat to death the store clerk. So his "past behavior" that day would have to be
taken into account there too.

In this supreme court case United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that apple cider vinegar is mislabeled when that vinegar is made from dried apples.

That has as much relevance as the case you cited. Brown was not running away from Officer Miller when the shots occurred.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

If NONE of the witnesses say Brown punched the officer and your only source is an unverified informant from the potential defendent's camp, there's reason to be skeptical.



I'm breaking down the case.

All the facts are not available yet........time will tell.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Maryland

How do you you (or anyone else) decide in a case where where it's the officers word against the suspects, who is telling the truth? Are both given equal credence, even when there is video evidence of one of the two (the suspect, not the officer) committing a felony crime just minutes earlier? If so, why exactly are they equal?



Explain why this is your opinion. Explain why a suspect of a violent strong armed robbery deserves a head start in the attempt to apprehend. Further, explain why a suspected violent offender is deserving of an officers responsibility to diffuse, and not be expected himself to diffuse.

Well in this case, I am going to rely primarily on the forensic autopsies, e.g. gun shot wounds
It can tell a lot about the distance from victim and gun, aim and direction of weapon to assailant etc...

The word of the officer and the suspects would be secondary to me, as a he said, she said.
Does not matter to me if the officer is a five star general and the victim is an ax murderer.
When **** happens, folks make things up, change stories, or elaborate. Period.

As far as diffusing, when Wilson got his gun back or always had his gun, he was in more
control than the victim IN MY OPINION. I think all victims are deserving of police following the
protocol of the law. Using lethal force is not a "first option of choice".

As far as the "Violent strong armed robbery" I am going to have to rationalize this
description. While under the law, strong armed robbery is the use of force such as shoving,
pushing, grabbing, let's not paint it more than it really is. You could use that same charge
for a purse snatcher, and I hardly think anyone on here, thinks the punishment for that
should be two bullets to the head.

I don't know if a suspect deserves a head start, like in playing a game of Olly olly oxen free
But I think officers of the public are paid to evaluate a present situation and determine if
additional force/action is immediate or if it can be diffused.

In this case I think officer Wilson escalated a situation that did not need to be.
It could be his inexperience as a police office, his immaturity as a man in general,
poor coping skills, or a combination of all of them. That's for the court and/or police force
to decide.

But, bottom line, I do not think Michael Brown needed or deserved to be shot in the
head 2 times, or shot a total of six times.