"Hands Up, Don't Shoot" . . . "Pants Up, Don't Loot" (generation, drug)

[Hector2]

Originally Posted by Leo58

May not be yes or no. What about this scenario:

Because the Officer may have had reason to believe he was being attacked and in danger when he fired the fatal shots, he is not indicted for murder or manslaughter.

However, because he previously fired at the unarmed suspect as he was fleeing, which shots were not fatal, he could be indicted on a lesser charge such as assault or unlawful discharge of a weapon.

That would allow the case to go to trial while at the same time exonerating him from the most serious charges.

My reading of Missouri law is that an officer is allowed to shoot an unarmed felony suspect if immediately necessary to make an arrest. So if the grand jury believes that Brown assaulted Wilson in the police car, a felony, (aside from the potential felony of the robbery at the convenience store for which there is some dispute over whether Wilson knew about it, but I'm sure Wilson testified that he did) then they would presumably also conclude that Wilson could justifiably use deadly force to arrest him once he fled.

Unfortunately, the media has done an extremely poor job of explaining Missouri law which, for better or for worse, gives the police a whole lot of discretion to use deadly force.

[marigolds6]

Originally Posted by Squeamish

Somebody indicated in the other thread that releasing this picture would be a misdemeanor, but given that its release would quiet down a lot of the people speaking out against Wilson, including myself, I would think they would get somebody to approve its release.

The particular law does not allow for "approval" of a release. Unlike other closed records, which have the option of being opened, an active investigation is mandated to be a closed record.

[BerkeleyKid]

Originally Posted by modernist1

Apparently Michael Brown's mother is planning on going to Geneva to address the UN. Maybe she can speak about the poor damn merchants in Ferguson who were in fear of their lives (and may well anticipate the same in the near future) during the recent riots and looting?

Who's paying for this Brown Family's trip to Geneva because, as a taxpayer, I didn't authorize it.

[Sharpydove]

Originally Posted by BerkeleyKid

Who's paying for this Brown Family's trip to Geneva because, as a taxpayer, I didn't authorize it.

Al, Jesse, and the gang...Rainbow Coalition or whatever it's called. "Donations" from delusional people.

[ctwhitechin]

Originally Posted by BerkeleyKid

Who's paying for this Brown Family's trip to Geneva because, as a taxpayer, I didn't authorize it.

Didn't they win the sweepstakes in Missouri or something and the prize was a trip for two to Europe?

What's worse the UN decided to entertain this carnival. I am traveling there next week, I am a victim of male pattern baldness striking me in my teens and I want them to hear my plea. Hey if I can get a free trip to a beautiful place too why not.

[mjtinmemphis]

What you guys don't realize is the Brown family has the right to go where they want and plead their case to whoever they want.

I think it was a waist of time. It seemed kind of silly to me. But it doesn't matter. Their son was murdered in their eyes.
[MOD CUT/off topic]

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by Dawn10am

Dorian Johnson and his attorney confirmed that he and Brown did indeed rob the convenience store and that it is Brown in the video.

Did he use the term rob or did they attempt to take the cigerellos or whatever they are called? What did the shop owner say about the incident?

[FrankMiller]

The protesters view the institutions of law as oppressive enemies, not trustworthy purveyors of truth and justice. If the officer isn't tried, it's because the system values the tools of white oppressors over the lives of blacks, not because he is innocent. It's not an entirely logical viewpoint, but after a couple hundred years of police oppression I don't think anyone but the most naive can be completely without empathy for them.

Ultimately the problem is a lack of trust; there's probably no institution the protesters would trust to vindicate Officer Wilson, therefore he can never be shown to be innocent in their eyes.

[Leo58]

Originally Posted by Hector2

My reading of Missouri law is that an officer is allowed to shoot an unarmed felony suspect if immediately necessary to make an arrest. So if the grand jury believes that Brown assaulted Wilson in the police car, a felony, (aside from the potential felony of the robbery at the convenience store for which there is some dispute over whether Wilson knew about it, but I'm sure Wilson testified that he did) then they would presumably also conclude that Wilson could justifiably use deadly force to arrest him once he fled.

Unfortunately, the media has done an extremely poor job of explaining Missouri law which, for better or for worse, gives the police a whole lot of discretion to use deadly force.

I have heard this - I don't like it, but the law is the law. It's ironic to phrase it as "use deadly force to arrest him". Kinda reminds me of Vietnam, when we "destroyed the village in order to save it".

[FrankMiller]

It would help if the powers that be showed any interest in fixing the overall situation, to soften the blow of Wilson's being declared innocent (should that happen). But of course they just want to sweep the uppity blacks under the rug and get back to business as usual. Hence the desperate desire of protesters to retain the spotlight as long as possible.