home

Missouri Gov. Declares State Emergency in Ferguson

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 05:44:21 PM EST
Tags: Michael Brown, Ferguson (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Governor of Missouri has declared a state of emergency in Ferguson. A curfew is in effect until further notice.

The police brought this on themselves. They have bungled every opportunity to resolve public frustration. They are a walking public relations disaster, choosing the wrong path at every turn.

Today, the Justice Department said they asked the police not to release the security camera video from the alleged theft at Ferguson's Wine and Market. [More...]

The Justice Department asked the Ferguson Police Department not to release the video because of concerns that “it would roil the community further,” a United States law enforcement official said on Saturday. The Ferguson Police Department released the video on Friday and the Justice Department official said it “occurred over the objection of federal authorities.”

Instead of releasing reports on the shooting, they took a stab at the character assassination of Michael Brown. Instead of talking to the community, they amassed tanks, tear gas and rubber bullets and threatened arrests. When the media was going to disclose the identity of the officer who killed Brown, they held a press conference and released the alleged robbery report, later admitting the cop stopped Brown because he was walking in the street and disregarded his instruction to move, not because of the alleged cigar-taking.

You reap what you sow, this one's on the police in my book.

< Rick Perry Indicted in Texas | Saturday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Missouri Gov. Declares State Emergency in Ferguson | 126 comments (126 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I agree that this has been very poorly handled. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Cashmere on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    I still await the details to unfold re: the actual shooting, other than just the eyewitness reports.  

    I keep hearing that this is taking too long and more details should have been released sooner.  I am unfamiliar as to what to expect.

    Re: the video, I see everyone's point re: character assassination, and when I watch the video, I am definitely moved to see a more violent side of Michael Brown than what has been depicted on the media thus far....  so I guess it was character assassination.

    And... after watching, even if he police officer was not aware of the theft at the store, wouldn't it likely be in the mind of Brown and couldn't it have resulted in his behavior towards the police officer?  Of course, this is speculation.. this is just where my mind is going, given the little that we know, and why I see it as relevant.  Releasing it did, however, just incite more anger and unrest.

    I very much feel for the Brown family and the community.  There is so much pain and anger.  It is so disappointing when the police force does not represent (even remotely) the diversity of the population.  The man who has taken over (from the state traffic police?  Roberts I believe) is to be commended and is doing a wonderful job, although he was on the hot seat during today's presser with the governor.

    Thanks as always for your reporting Jeralyn.

    Welcome back Cashmere... (none / 0) (#2)
    by fishcamp on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 06:57:39 PM EST


    Parent
    What about this? (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:47:47 PM EST
    " . . . later admitting the cop stopped Brown because he was walking in the street and disregarded his instruction to move, not because of the alleged cigar-taking."

    It would seem if he stopped to get Brown out of the street, he would have expressed that to Brown, so you could also imagine Brown might have just been thinking something else . . .

    Parent

    I understand why they did it (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by toggle on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    The cop's account is apparently that he recognized Brown after the initial stop but before the fatal confrontation. Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe that the story could be anything else; surely someone would have told the cop about this before he went on the record, and who could resist the urge to lie?

    Also, it jibes very well with the story told by Brown's friend, which was that the cop had told them to get out of the road, driven past them, then suddenly thrown his car into reverse and backed up until he was so close to Brown that he couldn't open the door.

    So did the cops release the video as character assassination? I'm sure that's part of it, but it's very relevant to the fatal incident since the robbery had occurred literally ten minutes before. Surely both Brown and the friend had expected to be arrested when that cop backed up toward them, irrespective of whether the cop really recognized them at that point. Plus, the friend has left that detail out (or claimed he thought the cop was still upset about them just walking down the road). It makes him look dishonest (which he probably is, given that he claims the cop tried to pull the 300lb Brown into the car by his neck).

    As to whether the video should have been withheld because it would inflame people -- they were pretty inflamed already. Remember that the looting happened before the armored trucks and cops dressed up like soldiers showed up.

    And, yes, I understand that the cops are clearly using the tape to bolster their guy's case while simultaneously withholding the rest of the information about the incident. But the activists and the media have already put out lots of stuff to make Brown look good, and the cop look bad; and their case was crafted and released in a very calculated way, too. Lots and lots of it. So who can blame the cops for releasing this tape to restore the balance, given its power to reshape public opinion away from the false narrative constructed by the activists and the media?

    It's hard for anyone to watch the tape and not conclude that Brown brought this on himself, irrespective of whether it was a good shoot. It makes the activists look foolish or dishonest. But instead of reflection from the community, and maybe a lesson learned about jumping to conclusions, we get more violence? That hurts the cause almost as much as making Michael Brown the face of black victimhood did in the first place.

    Even assuming that the tall youth in the video (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:37:50 PM EST
    is in fact Brown, or -- regardless of whether it is or not -- that Wilson at some time during the encounter thought he was dealing with a cigar-stealing thug, it is not at all hard to say that Brown did not "br[ing] this on himself."  A suspect in an unarmed robbery, assuming probable case and not mere suspicion, is liable to be arrested, not to be summarily executed.  This remains true even if he does not submit immediately to arrest.  

    Parent
    The video supports the cop's story (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by toggle on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:08:41 PM EST
    The lawyer for Brown's family confirmed it was him in the video. The lawyer for the friend confirmed it was them. They found the cigars on the body. There's no reason to doubt any of that at this point.

    At any rate, my point about Brown bringing it on himself wasn't that it was a justified shoot, but that Brown probably resisted arrest. I thought I made that clear in my prior post, but let me explain.

    The cop's story is that Brown resisted arrest, tried to take his gun, and that he was shot while doing so. Brown's friend doesn't even really contradict the basic outline of the encounter, he just makes the cop sound unreasonable. He says the cop was angry about them walking in the road and that -- from inside the car -- the cop grabbed the 6'4" Brown by the neck with one hand, held onto him for a while, and then shot him with the other hand. It's really quite ridiculous even without the friend omitting the robbery from his various retellings of the story (on television no less) and claiming things like "we wasn't causing any harm to nobody" and that no one had cause to bother them, etc. Watch the interview-- youtube video.

    There's other witnesses who suggest the cop kept shooting when he was no longer being threatened. I'm sure we'll learn more when the autopsy is released, since the friend is very specific about how Brown was shot once in the front, once in the back, then again in the front and so on. Plus, it seems to be uncontested that the body was found a fair distance away from the car. That doesn't mean he didn't stumble away after being shot, but let's see if the autopsy bears that out.

    But even if the shooting wasn't self-defense, that's not necessarily the end of the line; a cop can justify shooting a fleeing suspect if he's dangerous. I'm not sure whether robbery plus trying to take cop's gun is enough to justify the latter, but I lean toward thinking it probably is.

    The video makes the cop's story about Brown resisting arrest more likely to be true. Even if it wasn't self-defense or Brown wasn't dangerous enough to make it justifiable, the cop still shot Brown because he was resisting arrest, not because the cop was just picking on an innocent black kid, as the narrative goes.

    Parent

    "The cop's story"? I am not aware (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:43:17 PM EST
    of Wilson's having gone public with any version of what happened, nor of any statement he may have (foolishly) made to Internal Affairs or to the FBI having been made public.  What story, and from what source, are you referring to?

    Parent
    Re interviewing Officer Wilson: (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:57:49 PM EST
    see section on Garrity admonition, which is appicable in Missouri

    Parent
    I alluded to the Garrity problem (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:31:34 PM EST
    in a comment the other day.

    Parent
    Nothing first-hand (none / 0) (#14)
    by toggle on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:46:44 PM EST
    Unfortunately, I only know what can be pieced together from second-hand accounts that are either explicitly or implicitly based on what he's said, such as from the police department or the chief.

    Parent
    At this point.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by unitron on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:53:43 AM EST
    ...we can't even be certain that those accounts are only second-hand and not third or fourth hand.

    Parent
    i.e. Rumors (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:01:09 PM EST


    Parent
    If you put the emphasis on "story," (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:30:09 PM EST
    you'll be closer to appreciating that there's a lot of fiction masquerading as fact, here and elsewhere, and most of it is biased in favor of law enforcement.

    I fully expect that it will once again be very hard to push back effectively against those determined to make sure the story they weave results in the ending they want.

    I'm just appalled at how badly this whole incident has been handled, and it's hard not to understand the level of frustration that exists in Ferguson if what we're seeing from the local police department is what they have to deal with on a daily basis.

    Parent

    The first paragraph of your comment seems (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    unnecessary and judgmental. The officer is entitled to a thorough investigation, which we should await b/4 concluding he should be charged.

    Parent
    Pot and Kettle? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:39:19 PM EST
    Describing Brown as a drug addict who had to be dragged out of bed to get to school, seems judgmental and unnecessary too.

    Parent
    Maybe so. I was struck by the (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    initial descriptions of the victim and what his family said to the NYT.

    Parent
    I have a major problem with this (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    Teenagers and young adults often do"stupid" on a regular basis.

    By the time they reached the age of eighteen, many of them regardless of race or financial status, have tried weed ,  have snuck  some brews with friends and have their family members nag them about doing better in school. Regardless of these activities, if you asked their family members they would say that they were good kids. And for the most part, they would be right.

    There are two very distinct differences when viewing these activities when race is included in the mix.

    With white teenagers, especially middle or upper class teens, these activities would be viewed as part of their right of passage on their way to adulthood.

    With minority teens, especially AA teens, somehow it is proof that they are "thugs." Proof that they deserve whatever happens to them. They smoked weed, drank beer and had to be pushed to do better in school so it just has to be their fault.

    The other difference is that years later the white family can all laugh about what he/she did when they were younger. Too often the same cannot be said for the black family.

    Parent

    Smoking mj or shrugging off (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    going to class does not a "thug" make in my opinion. Probably doesn't help the GPA, but according to the NYT, the victim graduated from the worst public high school in the state.

    Parent
    Then I'm confused why you thought this article (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    was relevant  and why you described it as contrary to the initial descriptions of the victim and what his family said to the NYT. They and his neighbors thought he was a good kid that made it through school under tuff circumstances.

    Parent
    The initial reporting and some comments here (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    made it sound like the victim was an exceptional student  preparing to go away to college. Of course, none of this has anything to do w/whether the officer.was justified in firing his weapon at the victim.

    Parent
    Please don't write as if (none / 0) (#114)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:46:40 PM EST
    all white kids get a break. My poor, white nephew did a year in state jail for joining in on a jet-ski joyride. Lots of poor whites hate/fear law enforcement, too.

    Parent
    You Missed This Part (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:49:54 PM EST
    With white teenagers, especially middle or upper class teens, these activities would be viewed as part of their right of passage on their way to adulthood.

    Looks like your poor white nephew does not belong to the group that MO Blue was describing.

    It is extra hard on poor white kids to be treated like poor blacks.

    Parent

    Nobody said we shouldn't wait for (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:42:04 PM EST
    the facts, but that's not stopping the many commenters who appear to be bringing their negative judgments and conclusions to why Wilson was justified in shooting Brown.

    Or did you miss that, and the point of my comment?

    Parent

    Hard to mis, hence my comment. (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:44:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Presuming the shooting was illegal (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    Presuming the shooting was illegal, based on what we know now, do you think Wilson decided to shoot and kill Brown despite being aware that it was illegal and thus wrong?

    Or do you think Wilson probably thought he was following what he was trained to do?

    I ask because a lot of the commenters here seem to, at the least, imply intent in their comments, and the phrase "summarily executed" could also be read to imply intent.

    However you are usually more level-headed than most on TL, so that's why I ask this of you.

    Parent

    Thanks for the compliment (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:05:25 PM EST
    Level-headed or not, I find it hard not to refer to an objectively unreasonable and excessive use of deadly force by a trained law enforcement officer acting under color of law, resulting in the death of the suspect, as other than a summary execution. I don't think it's realistic to suppose that in those few, fatal seconds, the police officer in this sort of situation is thinking in rational or legalistic terms at all.  It's a matter of nearly automatic response, based on a combination of his subjective perception of threat (which may be racially biased), his training and the culture of the department.

    Parent
    Thanks, maybe not as direct an answer as I was (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:19:31 PM EST
    hoping for, but perhaps it's too complicated.

    Parent
    So it seems to me (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    like pretty much everything important.

    Parent
    How to be excluded from jury duty (none / 0) (#20)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:30:14 PM EST
    just say you presume what the defendant did was illegal

    Coffin

    Parent

    Ridiculous comment. The cherished presumption (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:37:10 PM EST
    of innocence absolutely applies to a person facing trial, and should be embraced by every citizen called for jury duty.  It has nothing to do with a discussion of important public issues among intelligent, informed people who are at least trying to candidly lay their inferences and assumptions on the table, in order to foster a meaningful conversation.

    Parent
    Until forensics are released (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 11:33:32 PM EST
    anyone who says they are informed about this case are just being silly.

    Parent
    There is a difference between doing our best (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    to stay "informed," and claiming to be fully informed. Without a reliable forensic analysis of the shooting, we will not be fully informed.  (Nor do I assume that receiving a forensic reconstruction of the shooting will make us "fully informed." Other forms of evidence are important also.) It does not follow that prior to receiving such a report no one's comments or opinions can qualify as "informed" at all.

    Parent
    I am not sure how forensics will (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:03:43 AM EST
    help.   Brown was shot in the back while fleeing and after he held up his hands.  

    We have not really heard a contrary account of the shooting.

    Parent

    A reconstruction of the shooting is going to be (none / 0) (#28)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:48:58 AM EST
    absolutely necessary, IMO.  Eyewitness accounts and whatever video exists combined with the forensic evidence gathered in the reconstruction should tell the story. I just hope the scene wasn't contaminated to the degree that they can't find all the necessary evidence.

    Parent
    Anyone have a link (none / 0) (#37)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:02:57 AM EST
    confirming how many times Brown was shot, what part of his body the bullets hit, if there was any GSR on the body, the angle the bullets hit the body, and other facts relating to the shooting.

    I have seen unconfirmed claims Brown was hit in the neck once, which seemed to suggest that a shot while Brown was close to the cop car perhaps struggling with the cop.  I have seen unconfirmed claims that several shots were fired at Brown from a greater distance, some claiming Brown was holding his hands up, and not all these shots hitting Brown.

    MKS is claiming Brown was shot in the back, which may be true, but I have never seen any confirmation of this from other sources.

    Parent

    "unconfirmed," "seems to (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    suggest," "perhaps," "claiming."

    While I notice you are becoming more careful in your choice of qualifiers, you're still working very hard to concoct a story that will result in the conclusion that the cop was justified in shooting and killing Michael Brown.

    And it's interesting that, while you have no confirmation of any of the things you so want to be true, you are rather quick to reject the unconfirmed information that points in a direction you don't want this to lead.  

    As they say, it's deja vu all over again.  And just as disgusting now as it was before.

    Parent

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jack203 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:39:00 AM EST
    "you're still working very hard to concoct a story that will result in the conclusion that the cop was justified in shooting and killing Michael Brown.

    And it's interesting that, while you have no confirmation of any of the things you so want to be true, you are rather quick to reject the unconfirmed information that points in a direction you don't want this to lead.  "

    Language like Michael Brown was "summarily executed", which your side is using is preposterous and the lynch mob chanting for Darren Wilson's murder is disgusting.

    Parent

    "My side?" (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    Perhaps you should be responding to the person or persons using the phrase, "summarily executed."  Or to anyone here who actually called for Wilson's murder. That wasn't me, by the way.

    The commenter to whom I was responding is weaving a story, one which is not disguised by his qualifiers. I don't understand how allowing rank speculation to stand as fact serves anyone well in the end.

    Get over yourself.

    Parent

    Summary Execution (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    If you have a problem with this being a summary execution what would you call it?

    Seems to fit the definition to a tee as far as I can tell.

    Parent

    I was the one who used the expression (none / 0) (#92)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    "summarily executed," not Anne.  And I explained what I meant in detail in another comment shortly after that, because another commenter asked me, in a thoughtful way, to do so.  Otherwise, nothing in your comment fairly reflects anything that either Anne or I (or anyone else among the TL commenters, I don't think) have written.  Nor are there simply two "sides," here.  If you read all my comments, you will see that (if you care to see).

    Parent
    One thing that is confirmed (none / 0) (#51)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    is that folks who claim the cop had no justification ignore the fact that the cop needed medical treatment after the confrontation.

    Those folks also ignore lots of holes in any defense of Brown.  I am still waiting to see any evidence that Brown was shot in the back or if there was any GSR on Brown.  If Brown was shot in the neck and there is GSR on the body it is a much different situation than if he was shot in the back with no GSR.

    The longer this goes on the worse it is looking for Brown's defense.

    Parent

    You have seen the medical report? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:02:59 AM EST
    When was it released?  What time was he treated and what was the description of his injuries.  Are the injuries consistent with his having drawn a gun in the face of a large man who would then, in fear of his life, struggle for it?

    Michael Brown did not attack the officer in an attempt to relieve him of his weapon.  The only way the gun came out is if the officer drew it.  What does the report say about why he did that?

    Parent

    I viewed the eye witness interview (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 05:45:59 PM EST
    done by Lawrence O'Donnell of a witness with no known connection to Brown.

    She very clearly said she saw Brown shot in the back as he was fleeing......  

    Parent

    She may have been lying (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jack203 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:04:16 PM EST
    How does the saying go....

    Snitches get stitches

    Parent

    If Anything, The Opposite Is True (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    When someone speaks truth to power and crosses the thin blue line that is called a whistleblower or someone with courage,

    When someone shills for the government in order to curry favor that is a called a snitch.

    In your fever to defend police action, you appear to be confused about common terms of language.

    Parent

    she is not a snitch (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:45:06 PM EST
    She was a witness who seemed perfectly credible to me.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jack203 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:19:27 PM EST
    She is not a snitch.

    We'll see if the autopsy/forensics jive with her statement.  I have my money on NO.


    Parent

    How does THAT follow? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:59:31 AM EST
    I have seen unconfirmed claims Brown was hit in the neck once, which seemed to suggest that a shot while Brown was close to the cop car perhaps struggling with the cop.

    For someone who's saying conclusions drawn without a forensics report are uninformed, you don't seem to mind drawing them in one direction.

    BTW - How does a shot in the neck suggest a shot at close range "perhaps struggling with the cop"?

    Parent

    The other day I linked to a video on Youtube (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    shot with a cellphone by a bystander in which an apparent witness described the shooting.

    You might not want to declare as fact how and when Brown was shot.

    Parent

    CNN has a "startling video" (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by toggle on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    CNN has as its top headline a "startling video" from the scene of Brown's shooting--a video of two bystanders talking about it. I thought, wow, that'd be startlingly honest of them.

    So I watch the video and one of the bystanders says "they said" the cop kept shooting the guy as he was laying on the ground. As if CNN could be any more despicable. CNN video link


    Parent

    What Do You Expect (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    It is harvest time for MSM....

    Parent
    The video is (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    here.

    Witness description of events starts at about he 6:30 mark. It can be difficult to hear/understand.

    Parent

    Additional analysis of sarcastic's link (none / 0) (#60)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    and if (none / 0) (#61)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:27:15 AM EST
    and if Michael brown had punched the officer once or more and reached for his weapon, how might an officer respond?

    Parent
    Professionally? Without deadly force? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    In other words, like a TRAINED officer.

    Parent
    While Columbia Police Department's public informat (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:54:39 AM EST
    While Columbia Police Department's public information officer told ABC 17 News to make a sunshine request to get a written copy of the guidelines, ABC 17 News talked with CPD's Union Rep. on Thursday.

    "In the case of the reports from Ferguson, the law enforcement community have indicated that Michael Brown allegedly tried to take the officers handgun away from him. When you attempt to take a handgun from a law enforcement officer that by definition is use of deadly force." said Dale Roberts.

    In Missouri, if someone is using deadly force on an officer, then the officer's deadly force is acceptable.

    "The reaction to a gun grab is immediate elevation to use deadly force in your own defense," said Roberts.

    "The question really becomes under certain circumstances the police can use deadly force but the officer has to have probably cause to believe the person who is fleeing is a danger to the officer or other people." said Rodney Uphoff, an Elwood Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor of Law.



    Parent
    I might add (none / 0) (#64)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    that if indeed  Brown "reached for the weapon," it could only have been after it had been drawn by the officer.  There are very few options when someone has a gun in your face.  One is to try to keep it from being pointed at you, the other is to run.

    Brown's actions are completely consistent with being threatened with deadly force.

    Parent

    Constitutionally, (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:58:42 AM EST
    Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says Klinger. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" -- what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect's committed a serious violent felony.

    The logic behind the second circumstance, says Klinger, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee vs. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The Court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger says, "they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."

    Some police departments' policies only allow deadly force in the first circumstance: defense of life. Others have policies that also allow deadly force to prevent escape in certain cases, within the limits of the Supreme Court decision.



    Parent
    Cops are allowed to point guns at robbers (none / 0) (#71)
    by toggle on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    Notwithstanding the repeated media claims to the contrary, the cop's story seems to be that he was trying to investigate or arrest Brown for the robbery. Cops are allowed to point guns at robbers.

    Robbers, on the other hand, aren't allowed to grab cops' guns.

    Parent

    Is it established the cop was trying to (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    investigate a robbery he may have not known about? Or was this about jaywalking? Seems this has not been established to any solid degree yet . . .

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:39:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#74)
    by toggle on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    As far as I know all we have are various second-hand accounts of what the cop's said. But they're coming from reliable (if inarticulate) sources (i.e., the police chief and company).

    I've seen it reported that there was an announcement to be on the lookout for the robber over the cops' radio. And as I explained before, I find it highly unlikely that, that irrespective of whether the cop really suspected Brown of the robbery, he's going to say he did.

    The only person who can testify to the contrary (Brown's friend) tells an improbable story and lacks credibility since he's repeatedly omitted the robbery when he tells it. I talked about this more above, also.

    Parent

    What doesn't quite work for me is (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    if he suspected Brown was the suspected robber, why even bother with the walking in the street part? Wouldn't he be justified in just asking to speak with Brown?

    Parent
    The story goes (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by toggle on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    The chief says the cop initial contact was over them walking in the street. Later the cop realized that Brown might be connected to the robbery when he saw Brown carrying the cigars.

    This actually fits in well with Brown's friend's story. He says the cop told them to get out of the road, drove past them, then suddenly threw his truck into reverse and sped back at them. I summarized it more thoroughly in another post.

    Parent

    That makes more sense, thanks. (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:04:26 PM EST


    Parent
    You're employing a very obvious double standard (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:54:00 PM EST
    Using your criteria, the Ferguson Police Chief totally lacks credibility since he's repeatedly omitted and/or changed details depending on who he is talking to or the feedback he is getting on his statements.

    Despite your claim, the Ferguson Police Chief and company's second-hand accounts of what the cop said or did are not any more reliable than Brown's friend first hand account.

    Parent

    Different standards for different sources (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by toggle on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    That's a clever proposition, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    First of all, we're comparing what the friend said about the shooting. He's the actual witness to the event at issue. The chief's credibility would be as to whether he's reliably relating what the cop's said.

    And there's a method to the chief's madness. He's trying to excuse releasing the tape while not disclosing further details about the shooting. That's why he says he won't go past saying that the robbery wasn't the reason for the initial contact. He emphasized initial contact over and over again, but the media quoted him out of context or misconstrued what he said nonetheless. He hasn't actually been inconsistent on that point, even if the media accounts make it sound like he has. Go back and watch the press conferences if you don't believe me.

    When Holder brings this cop to trial, Brown's friend will be impeached with those statements. What the chief said will be irrelevant.

    But at this time, the chief is the only source we've got for what the cop's story is going to be. And, yeah, it's been pointed out that the cop's statements, if coerced, can't be used against him at the trial. And, apparently, he can't even be impeached with them anymore (that didn't used to be the case). But the cop will have to tell his story somehow, and since the prior statements have been described at length in news reports, for pragmatic reasons he can't deviate from them.

    There's nothing contradictory or illogical about my use of these sources.

    Parent

    Good try (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:47:14 PM EST
    Yes there is very surely method to the chief's madness.  Being a reliable resource for what actually happened is not part of the mix. From all appearances, managing  public opinion and protecting his officer is his highest priority. If his actions escalate the violence in Ferguson well that just helps him prove his case.

    What the chief says now is no way irrelevant. His statements, whether truthful or not, are going to be in the minds of the jury if this ever makes it to trial.

    Of course, the cop can deviate as much as he wants from what has been reported in the news. He never made the statements. If he ever testifies, all he has to say is that the person who made the statement wasn't there and was confused.

    Parent

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#102)
    by toggle on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:11:39 PM EST
    You seem to argue that the chief's credibility isn't relevant, then you turn around and say it is, then you argue that it isn't, again.

    Are you still accusing me of unfairly employing a double standard? I am confused.

    Parent

    I agree that you are confused (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:06:57 PM EST


    Parent
    correction: Highly "likely" (none / 0) (#75)
    by toggle on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:42:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Also, (none / 0) (#4)
    by toggle on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:37:10 PM EST
    It should not be forgotten that the justice department is not some objective band of "investigators" with just the public good at heart. They're the prosecution.

    In other words, this is a case where the prosecutors didn't want the police to release highly exculpatory evidence to the public.

    Parent

    There is nothing "exculpatory" whatever (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:39:47 PM EST
    to Wilson in that video.  See my comment #5.

    Parent
    release per public records act (none / 0) (#52)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    I could be wrong, but it seems there is a sunshine law in the state and certain public entities are required to release certain information when requested, as they were requested, by a variety of groups, such as journalists and news organizations.

    The city states that they are releasing the video to the whole public, rather than simply doling it out to the ones who requested it, and who would then simply rebroadcast it.

    Parent

    hm . . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:18:18 AM EST
    we have a fellow who intimidated a small store clerk and pushed him around . . . and when confronted by a police officer, may have reached for the officer's weapon and tussled with the officer.  IF so, he was definitely a dangerous suspect . . . the question is on what is proper law enforcement procedure when dealing with dangerous suspects who may be fleeing and told to stop.

    Parent
    If the video had not been released (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:21:58 PM EST
    you can be sure that many people would consider it a cover-up, and journalists would be clamoring for it.

    According to the Ferguson Chief of Police... (none / 0) (#32)
    by unitron on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:57:40 AM EST
    ...it was journalists clamoring for the video, via FOIA requests, that forced them to have to release it in the first place.

    Parent
    I'm wondering if there was a FOIA requst for the (none / 0) (#33)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:00:16 AM EST
    shooting officer's report made at that time or before as well. Do you know?

    Parent
    Evidence can be withheld (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:59:07 PM EST
    if it might interfere with an investigation. If police were no longer investigating the theft at the market, however, I don't see how they could justify withholding it.

    It's possible that there's investigative value in withholding Wilson's statement.

    Parent

    Here is what I don't get: (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    (well, at least one of the many things about this case that I don't get)
    According to the Ferguson Chief of Police... (none / 0) (#32)
    by unitron on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:57:40 AM MDT

    ...it was journalists clamoring for the video, via FOIA requests, that forced them to have to release it in the first place.

    How did the journalists know about it for such clamoring to take place? And does he usually respond so quickly to an FOIA request? And who made that request, anyway? And was there no accompanying journalistic clamor for the name of the officer in question? Did those "journalists" consider a convenience store robbery to be of greater journalistic interest than the fatal shooting of a young black man?

    Okay, so I wonder about a lot of things when it comes to the release of that video.

    Parent

    I rather suspect.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:05:54 PM EST
    ...that they got a tip about the robbery, possibly from someone inside the Ferguson PD, maybe from the customer who called 911, maybe from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone...

    Or maybe some enterprising reporter thought it was worth checking the police blotter to see what else was going on that day.

    Parent

    I think so, too (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:54:49 PM EST
    I rather suspect.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:05:54 PM MDT

    ...that they got a tip about the robbery, possibly from someone inside the Ferguson PD, maybe from...


    In fact I believe the delay in releasing the video is because it took a while for "journalists" to take the bait.

    Which is why using "journalists" as the impetus behind releasing the video is more than just a little disgenuous.

    In my opinion.

    Parent

    More Importantly... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    ...why wasn't the other video released at the same time ?   The one some are interpreting as Brown paying ?  I don't see it, but then I didn't see a dangerous thug in the other video.

    My Opinion.
    The Ferguson police department isn't used to playing by the rules or answering to the public for their misdeeds.  It's like they are stumbling through trying to figure out what they have to do, want they want to do, and how to figure it out fast without shooting themselves in the foot.  So far, they haven't managed one thing without hurting themselves.

    They have a documented history of violating rights and brutality.

    If Brown is a thug because of past history, so is the entire Ferguson Police Department.  But this is some real Stalin like balls:

    In 2009, officers mistakenly arrested Henry Davis based on an outstanding warrant for another man with the same surname. While in custody, Davis was allegedly beaten by four officers. Davis was charged with "property damage" for bleeding on the officers' uniforms.
    LINK

    With every step, every comment, every action there is little doubt to me that this department does what it feels like doing and doesn't give one damn about the victim and how the shooting relates to their ability to police.  It's their way or no way and that is not working in the national spotlight.

    The worse part is that no matter what really happened, there is no way anyone goes to jail.  Most people are defending the cops without them putting out any information about the shooting.  They can lock the door and call it a day so long as their report doesn't specifically state that the officer used excessive and deadly force when it was not warranted.

    Or... and so far looks like a possibility, the department goes so over the top trying to help Wilson, that even the people currently defending them, can't buy the version of events.

    Again, all my opinion.

    Parent

    According to the NYTimes (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:34:09 PM EST
    The justice dept specifically asked the city not to release the robbery video.  They did it anyway.

    Parent
    Did the Justice Department... (none / 0) (#124)
    by unitron on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:17:47 AM EST
    ...happen to explain to them what legal reason they could use to sidestep their legal obligation to release it under the FOIA law?

    Parent
    Legal Obligation? (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:23:12 AM EST
    Are you an expert on FOIA requests and aware of the process?

    Why don't you go to your local PD and submit a FOIA request for video depicting a crime?

    Then come back and tell us how that worked out.


    Parent

    Waiting for recordings and transcripts (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    of the clerk at the store and same re law enforcement dispatch records.

    character assassination and militarization (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by crimebird on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:54:20 PM EST
    1.  I wonder how many people who think that the release of the video of the robbery was character assassination would describe the British Daily Mail's article about the cop's mother as more of the same?

    2.  How realistic is it for people to expect that the police when faced with a riot should not turn out wearing tactical gear?  And if people are throwing things at police cars, is it it really that unreasonable to have armored vehicles that protect officers driving them from that?

    I really think expecting the police not to wear protective gear and use standard riot control techniques (like using tear gas) is totally unrealistic.  I have a feeling that the day that the police are ordered to confront a riot without such gear and police are injured or even killed, we're going to see huge lawsuits against the city and state governments that told them not to suit up.

    I also can't help but wonder despite all this talk about militarization of the police, has anyone apart from one demonstrator actually been shot?

    Define (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:40:40 AM EST
    shot

    There are lot of these photos

    Parent

    The Other Version Of The Story (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Jan Tiliki on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    Here is what "Josie," the person who identified herself as a friend of Darren Wilson's, says is his version of the story. She said that she came to know this via his "significant others" on "Sunday night before the riot, so it was when they were still on Facebook, everyone was still talking, you know, it was kind of an open discussion at that point."

    This is my transcription; I haven't double-checked it yet:

    So he said that, you know, they were walking in the middle of the street, um, he rolled up and rolled his window down and, you know, said, some on guys, get out of the street. Um, they refused to, and were yelling back, and saying we're almost where we're going, and they were... there was some cussing involved. And then he kept rolling up and he pulled over, and I believe at that point he called for a backup. But I'm not sure. Um, but I know that he pulled up ahead of them, and he was watching them, and then he gets the call in that there was a strong-arm robbery, and they give the description, and he's lookin' at them, and they got something in their hands that looks like it could be, what, the cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them, tries to get out of his car, they slam his door shut violently, I think he said Michael did. Um,  and then he opened his car again, and tries to get out, and as he tries to get out Michael just bum-rushes him, pushes him back into his car, punches him in the face, and then, um... of course Darren grabs for his gun, and Michael grabs the gun, at one point he's got the gun totally turned against his hip. And Darren, you know, shoves it away, and the gun goes off.

    Well, then, Michael takes off with his friend, they get to be about 35 feet away, and um, you know, Darren, of course protocol is to pursue. So he um stands up and yells "Freeze," um, Michael and his friend turn around and Michael starts taunting him: Oh, what are you going to do about it? You know, you're not going to shoot me. And then he said all of a sudden he just started to bum-rush him, he just started coming at him full speed, so he just started shooting, and he just kept coming. So, he really thinks he was on something, um, `cuz he just kept coming, it was unbelievable. And so he finally end up... the final shot was in the forehead. And then he fell about two-three feet in front of the officer. So that's why the stories are going around oh he was shot execution style, I think some people saw, you know, the shot to the head. Um, of course ballistics will prove he wasn't shot in the back as the other people are saying, the quote-unquote witnesses, but... that's his version of what happened.

    Drudge now has a link ("Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at Scene `a Game-Changer' ") to a writeup of the camera phone video from the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Here is a transcription of the relevant portion from the website The Conservative Treehouse:

    @6:28/6:29 of video

    #1 How'd he get from there to there?

    #2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck - cause he was like over the truck

    {crosstalk}

    #2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran - the police got out and ran after him

    {crosstalk}

    #2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him -

    #1. Oh, the police got his gun

    #2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I'm thinking the police kept missing - he like - be like - but he kept coming toward him
    {crosstalk}

    #2 Police fired shots - the next thing I know - the police was missing

    #1 The Police?

    #2 The Police shot him

    #1 Police?

    #2 The next thing I know ... I'm thinking ... the dude started running ... (garbled something about "he took it from him”)

    If it turns out that Darren Wilson's account more or less comports with what "Josie" has said, and if the autopsy and the ballistics and medical reports turn out to support that version (and to contradict the version of the story that is currently widely believed), then it would seem that the shooting was reasonable, lawful, and justified.

    At this point we do not know what happened. It would be sensible to acknowledge that we have two sharply divergent stories about what happened, both of which are quite plausible. We simply do not have access to evidence adequate to determine what actually happened at this point in time. People should keep their minds open about the various possibilities, and wait for more conclusive evidence to emerge or be released to the public.

    According to the NYT, Wilson was living with a (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:33:04 PM EST
    female law enforcement officer. If she posted what he told her on FB they are both not too bright.

    Parent
    In that case (none / 0) (#96)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    There will not be any bullets in his back.

    Parent
    How long does it take (none / 0) (#8)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:49:42 PM EST
    to complete forensics on a shooting like this one?

    I don't know but suspect the the Ferguson Police Department does not have lots of resources, not to mention jurisdictional issues with the state LEOs and Feds wanting to perform their own investigations; all of which (maybe I guess) would slow things down even more.

    No question I would like to know how many shots were fired, how many hit and missed, what range those that hit were fired from, what angle they were fired from, was the entry on the front or back of the body, and probably even more.

    Any CSI guys who can answer how long such a report would take to produce.

    Michael Baden has been hired to conduct (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 10:20:50 PM EST
    a second autopsy. Reuters.

    Brown family attorney Anthony Gray said on Saturday that Dr. Michael Baden, a high-profile forensic pathologist, will conduct a second autopsy on Brown's body, according to CNN.


    Parent
    Link is not to Article on Autopsy (none / 0) (#30)
    by RickyJim on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:54:01 AM EST
    Of course, the question immediately arises as to what the family didn't like about the original autopsy.  Somebody must smell paydirt to pay for a second autopsy by a high profile character like Baden.

    Parent
    I think possibly the "trust" factor may (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:57:33 AM EST
    be the issue.  How can anyone trust the police or any involved governmental agency at this point after what has transpired?

    Parent
    So if the autopsy does not show what you want (3.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Jack203 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:16:06 AM EST
    You will claim it's a conspiracy?

    That's good to know.

    Parent

    I didn't say there was a conspiracy, which implies (none / 0) (#41)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:28:08 AM EST
    a group working together to accomplish something or perform a subversive act.  I said issues of trust, which goes to integrity and ability. This particular police department thus far hasn't acted competently, IMO, which makes me wonder about the other agencies of this town.  Don't try to put words in my mouth.  

    Parent
    Police Conspiracy, Police Coverup (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    It does appear to be quite common that the Police cover up their mistakes with regularity.

    Call it a conspiracy?.... well it is a thin blue line.

    Odd that you would find that surprising, given your sarcasm.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jack203 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:27:41 PM EST
    I really do not know how often police cover ups occur.  I haven't heard of any major cases involving murder.  A murder conspiracy involving the medical examiner is even more rare.  I find it extremely unlikely the medical examiner fudged his report for the police.

    I have no quarrel with people wanting to complain about the police using military weapons, but after seeing how easily the police can be bought in other countries.  I do have to give the police a lot of credit for not being corrupt.  It could be a lot worse.

    Parent

    Not My Experience (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:39:27 PM EST
    Not sure where you live but where I live the police lie and cover up routinely. The Federal Government had to be called in to oversee them as they are so corrupt.

    In NYC stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional and an outside monitor was called in to oversee the police for 5 years.

    The NYPD tried to cover up this one but failed:

    Cops heard Eric Garner cry that he couldn't breathe, a recording captured officers violently taking him to the ground and even Mayor de Blasio said he believes the asthmatic father of six was put in a chokehold.

    But an NYPD internal report prepared right after his death on Staten Island last Thursday plays down the incident, with supervising officers failing to note the chokehold and insisting Garner was not in "great distress."

    and right around the corner:

    In Newark the Federal Government had to be called in to oversee them as they are so corrupt.


    Parent

    Link Here (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:37:12 AM EST
    Reuters

    FYI: if you copy the quote and google it you will usually find the source.


    Parent

    Reuters article (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    here

    Brown family attorney Anthony Gray said on Saturday that Dr. Michael Baden, a high-profile forensic pathologist, will conduct a second autopsy on Brown's body, according to CNN.


    Parent
    Holder also wants his own autopsy (none / 0) (#53)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    But Holder did say he would not ignore the local one.

    link

    Parent

    Like 6 weeks, +/-. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:32:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Reuter's latest account of police variations (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 10:24:36 PM EST
    Reuters tonight:

    For days, police repeatedly refused to identify the officer involved, citing concerns for his safety. On Friday, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson gave in to community pressure and identified Wilson as the officer involved.

    But at the same time, Jackson added to the community's outrage when he announced Brown had been a suspect in a robbery of a convenience store at the time he was shot.

    Jackson later told a news conference that when Wilson shot Brown, the officer did not know the teen was a suspect in the robbery. There was no connection between the shooting and the alleged robbery, Jackson said.

    On witnesses vs police account of killing:

    The police version of Brown's shooting differs markedly from witness accounts, including that of the friend who was walking with Brown at the time, Dorian Johnson, 22.

    In the police version, after Wilson asked Brown to move out of the road onto a sidewalk, Brown reached into the patrol car and struggled with Wilson for the officer's service gun. Wilson, who sustained a facial injury, then shot Brown a number of times.

    Johnson and at least one other witness have said the officer reached out through his car window to grab at Brown and the teenager was trying to get away from the officer when he was shot. Brown held up his hands in a sign of surrender but the officer got out of his patrol car and shot Brown several times, they said.
    Stop or I'll Shoot (none / 0) (#34)
    by RickyJim on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:08:22 AM EST
    I don't know if Officer Wilson actually said that but what is the law about shooting a suspect that is trying to get away?

    Parent
    Whatever the law may be (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:43:44 AM EST
    it is wrong imo to kill someone who is fleeing.

    The wors that has been said about Brown is that he forcible robbed the convenience store.  But he was unarmed by all accounts.

    Under these circumstances, which appear undisputed, killing Brown was wrong and basically  murder.  If the law says his murder was justified, then the law is an arse, as it is sometimes said.

    Parent

    Even if it was was ultimately (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    determined the deceased was unarmed, the pertinent issue is whether a reasonable officer under the circumstances would have known this at the time he fired.

    Parent
    You can always search the corpse (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    This is the attitude that kills people.  Why "take the chance" that he is armed, even if he is retreating and you don't see a weapon?

    Why, he MIGHT be armed!  This is America!  EVERYBODY might be armed!

    Shooting people dead is certainly an effective means of determining whether they are armed.  

    OTOH, we see lots of defiant armed White people openly carrying weapons that would get a Black man shot in Ferguson.  As long as the police KNOW he's armed, I guess there is no need to shoot him to find out.

    Parent

    We obviously view this event from differing (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:50:02 AM EST
    perspectives. Mine is the perspective of whether Officer Wilson may be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter, etc. Yours is the prevailing perspective here.

    Parent
    Not at all reassuring (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 05:41:26 PM EST
    Cops bascially have a license to kill.  Few ever really second guess when they kill.

    It is too skewed in their favor.

    Parent

    The worst that has been said about Brown (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:13:03 AM EST
    is that he reached inside a police car and tried to grab the cop's gun and in the process injured the cop to the extent that the cop needed medical treatment for his injuries.

    The above happened after the cop ordered Brown and a friend to move out of the street and not block traffic.

    There are also pix of Brown making what appear to be gang signs while wearing Crip colors.

    It would not be a shock that as the investigation proceeds that more comes out.

    Parent

    This is moronic (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:30:35 AM EST
    I keep hearing these claims that Brown reached inside the police car to try to take the officer's weapon.

    Now for the hard of hearing.

    THE ONLY WAY THE WEAPON CAME OUT OF ITS HOLSTER IS IF THE OFFICER DREW IT.

    (Assuming it's on the officer's right hip, in a police standard security holster.)

    I don't know about you, but if a guy pulls out a gun at point blank range, I would do whatever I needed to to avoid being shot, struggle for the gun or run.  In Brown's case it was not enough.

    I keep hearing references to a "service revolver."  No way a PD with a tank at its disposal is using six-shooters.  I say he had a clip and emptied it, WITH ZERO REGARD FOR THE BACKGROUND.

    Parent

    Not To Mention (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    That even if Brown's state of mind made him do stupid things (nicotine withdrawal, panic, fear etc) it is more stupid for anyone to imagine Brown bending down to reach into a manned police car to try to grab the police gun.

    Unless he was suicidal, and apparently he was not, it is stupid, imo. to believe the police side of this story.

    Parent

    I'm not sure what the big deal is... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by crimebird on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    perhaps the police officer drew his pistol when he realized that Brown was a robbery suspect and Brown tried to take it away from him.  Or perhaps the officer came out his car and Brown tried to get the pistol from him at that point.

    The fact that the officer drew his pistol does not mean that he committed a crime.

    And again...I don't know why people can't wait to hear what the forensics and autopsy show.  If they show Brown was shot in the back and at some distance, then it would seem to me the officer is in deep trouble.  But if Brown was shot facing the officer at close range, that is considerably more open to interpretation.

    Parent

    Mixed Message? (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    And again...I don't know why people can't wait to hear what the forensics and autopsy show.

    So why all the speculation?

    perhaps the police officer drew his pistol when he realized that Brown was a robbery suspect and Brown tried to take it away from him.  Or perhaps the officer came out his car and Brown tried to get the pistol from him at that point.


    Parent
    well, I was... (none / 0) (#105)
    by crimebird on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:15:30 PM EST
    responding to the rather insistent point the OP was making...but I take your point.

    Parent
    What the heck do these supposed pics (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    of Brown allegedly making gang signs and wearing crips colors have to do with anything? You've said that more than once, it has nothing to do with the shooting that day. You seem to have an agenda.

    Parent
    if police account is true (none / 0) (#59)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    then, won't we assume that perhaps one shot by the police was justified by that additional shots were not?

    Parent
    Federal Dept. Of Justice will perform (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    a second autopsy, as requested by the victim's family:

    NYT

    Seems like some (2.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Jack203 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:01:45 PM EST
    are not happy with the original autopsy.

    Very telling.

    Perhaps it wasn't an "execution" after all?

    Parent

    Is there a word in there (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    ...that isn't baseless speculation with a slant to make the kid look bad?

    Maybe the family is doing what every medical specialist suggests, getting a second opinion to confirm the results of the first.

    Actually, I don't know either, so we might as well speculate in both directions.

    Parent

    I'm just glad it's a federal medical examiner (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jack203 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    As opposed to a hired private one.

    All is well.

    I'd give 100 to 1 it's the Federal turns out the same as the State. Or at least no major differences.

    Parent

    If the initial autopsy has been released, I (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:49:10 PM EST
    missed.  

    Parent
    Or maybe, given the way the (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:09:17 PM EST
    Ferguson PD has handled the entire situation, the family doesn't trust that an autopsy conduced under the city's auspices will be accurate, objective or complete.

    Parent
    Missouri Gov. Declares State Emergency in Ferguson | 126 comments (126 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment