Michael Brown shooting - justified?

Post Reply New Topic

Pssshhh, people are still way undereducated about cannabis and the people that use it.

Ok, first the officer is supposed to be trained in hand-to-hand fighting, no? Aren't officers trained in how to subdue suspects without resorting to deadly force?

Beyond that, there's no evidence that the officer's life was in immediate danger. If an unarmed man is charging at you from more than 35 feet away (I say more than 35 feet because if he was charging, and was shot at 35 feet, he must have started charging from beyond 35 feet), you have many options before that man can actually bring some sort of deadly force to bear against you. You can run, you can take out your nightstick, taser, pepper spray, etc. If the man was a few feet away from the officer, arm cocked, ready to punch, *maybe* the officer's life would have been in immediate danger. But 35+ feet away, at that moment an unarmed suspect can do nothing more than flail his arms about at the air. There is no way an officer with an array of non-lethal weaponry designed to subdue suspects should ever lose a fight like that against an unarmed man, even if the officer was not equipped with a gun. The idea that the officer's life was in danger seems a lot more like an after-the-fact made-up 'justification' based on vastly overstated danger than anything actually legitimate.

If the officer was justified in this case, then basically any police officer anywhere can claim that he felt his life was in danger just by the mere presence of another person in the general vicinity of the officer. The officer only has to claim he felt threatened by the actions of the other person, and especially in the absence of any witnesses, the officer can completely make up facts about the suspect's behavior in order to basically justify murder.

That's a big "should". Not everyone is a good fighter. Even if they are, anyone can get killed in a fight. And it can come down to who is bigger. And, the guy was apparently looking to take his gun. If you have a gun, 35 feet away is a good time to use it against someone trying to kill you. Tasers don't always stop a determined person, I've seen videos.


That could very well turn out to be the case. If so, he's guilty of murder.



It's always been true that if there are no witnesses, cops can get away with anything. Just like criminals can.

Funnily, if Brown assaulted someone in the street, and the fight went down how some say it did, then the civilian shouldn't be charged with anything (though she'd have to explain to the police why she couldn't flee, but there's justifiable reasons for that).

My mom said Brown stole several cigars from a convenience store and assaulted the clerk when he locked the door to hold him until the cops got there.
Then he turns around and assaults a cop right after he assaults the clerk. So...I think Brown was gonna keep on assaulting the rest of the day or night or whatever through. Something got in his way, he was gonna assault.

Fm the security camera footage at the store, it most certainly seemed like that.

Interesting you made the shooter a she in this scenario

but using George Zimmerman as a comparison who was charged with 2nd degree murder, I think that this shooting Ferguson is a much murkier case for self defense. Trayvon Martin was shot standing over Zimmerman and was shot only once whereas Mike Brown was shot 6 times 35 feet away from where the fight supposedly took place. I think Zimmerman was totally overcharged and wasn't guilty of 2nd degree murder but I do think using the same precedent this officer is more guilty of it(for the lack of a better term)

She, he; easier to just put she to encompass both.

If it goes like this:

-Brown assaults civilian, attempts to take pistol too; scuffle
-Brown runs away due to civilian gaining control of pistol and firing one off (perhaps hitting Brown in the arm or something)
-Civilian steps out from where the assault took place, probably disorientated from head wound
-Brown runs at civilian
-Civilian opens fire (can't really flee)

Now, if the civilian opens fire as Brown is running away, then excessive force is in effect, and she can be charged with some form of murder. However, if she is disorientated due to head trauma, you can take that down to manslaughter easily enough due to impaired judgement directly resulting of the assault.

That is similar to what happened to a security guard nearby (she wasn't tasked with protecting the public from the dangerous felon, so she couldn't go after him. She did though). She got off anyway from all charges.

I just took a look at the footage myself and he does look like a big scary guy and that clerk was kinda lucky he didn't get really hurt. People got to reach the point they come to terms with the reality. This guy was being hostile and belligerent and he's a big guy. Bad combination. I think this guy is big enough and in a foul enough mood to scare most people unless you are the jolly green giant or a pro wrestler. If he came at me all frowning and belligerent yeah I'd be scared and if I had a gun, I might shoot.

That clerk definitely has some guts but is it really worth getting injured? Were these cigars made of gold? They are only cigars. Call the cops but don't risk your life over cigars.

I posted in the other thread, but felt it was worth a copy/paste to this one:

Just to throw a wrench into the BS factory production line:

The Face book post by "Wilson? saying that Brown attacked Wilson, grabbed his gun, and the terrified cop shot only in self-defense were from a fake Facebook page set up to look like Wilson?s. This was not corrected by Fox or CNN.

The radio show caller telling Wilson's account of the incident (Josie) has since been uncovered as fake. Fox, CNN, Drudge, and Breitbart have yet to correct this. This is where the BS gunshot while being attacked in the car, "are you gonna shoot me" claims, and charging the officer even after being shot come from. This is also where the facial injury line of crap began.

The facial injuries to Wilson are likely untrue. The CT/Xray released was from the University of Iowa, and was not of Wilson. All accounts of facial injury used fake medical images as their proof. This was not corrected by Fox or ABC.

Attorneys for the shop stated that neither the shop owner nor any shop employees reported a robbery and that Michael Brown did in fact pay for the cigars. At around 36/37 second mark in the video of that event, you can see the currency change hands. It doesn't change the fact that he was rude and needlessly aggressive, but those are hardly offenses deserving of death:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew[/youtube]

Other things:
Brown had no arrest record. All "proof" to the contrary is from a different Michael Brown (easily proven by age and/or location/date of arrest)
Several pictures of "violent protesters" are actually pictures of protesters throwing tear gas canisters back in the direction of the police who fired them.
The police have illegally detained and seized the equipment of multiple journalists and citizens, including St. Louis City Alderman Antonio French who was there to keep things calm and peaceful.
If you do not include Brown, the number of murders in Ferguson for 2014: ZERO.
Every official statement made by the police about this incident has contradicted some aspect of a previous one.
The official incident report includes little more than the names, date and location. No details of the event whatsoever.
Wilson's name was not released until after he was able to delete all social media traces and relocate.


Here is an excerpt from an examiner.com article (and copy/pasted all over the blogosphere as original work) which should make you think twice before spouting off some things you feel compelled to claim aren't racist:

I'd like mention that Sharpton, Jackson, and Holder have all been been putting great effort into the streets of Chicago and New York for some time now, but I guess facts don't matter when you have some racist garbage to spew.


One thing that bothers me is that the most comprehensive breakdown of the witnesses I've been able to find is not by a journalist, an analyst, a legal scholar, or investigator. It is a from game designer writing here at Addicting Info:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/21/ferguson-witnesses/

Can someone explain ? Apparently he was not shot in the back, and not up close based on the medical examination of the body, so that does not seem to jive with the witness statement that Mr. Brown was shot at up close, and was shot at while running away. Mr. Brown is a big target, and the policeman is a trained shooter, so misses would seem unlikely.

Since we're double-posting now:

"Rude and needlessly aggressive?" That's an understatement. He grabbed the guy by the throat and threw him over.

Let's look at who's being unreasonable here:

1: "Nobody would charge at an armed cop."

Wrong. It happened today in Saint Paul: http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/273013851.html

That was an even more extreme case.

2: "The cop shot him multiple times, so it must have been malicious."

Wrong. In the above case, the officers shot the attacker three times. That didn't even stop him from fighting.

Now let's talk a bit about racial garbage:

I've already gone on record with what I think about militarized crowd-control and cops shooting unarmed black men:



1: "Wilson would be in jail if he'd shot a white man."

That's easy to test.

We had a case in Minneapolis in which a black undercover officer was shot by a white citizen (who had a concealed-carry permit) during a road rage incident. Th officer had been driving so aggressively in his unmarked car that multiple bystanders called 911 to report him. There is no dispute about that.

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/18537149.html
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?tag=treptow

The officer allegedly drew his gun and pointed it at the man, his pregnant wife, and their two kids, at which point the man shot the officer three times, wounding him. The permit-holder's wife was the first to call 911, and their statements were consistent from that initial call all the way through the trial.

Summary: Cop (who is black) demonstrates conspicuous, wanton disregard for safety and the law, as established by many independent witnesses; multiple people say that he drew his gun in a rage and pointed it at a pregnant woman and two very young children; the male driver (who is white) acted in what would be clear self-defense if that's true; the officer's name was initially withheld; grand jury charges against the officer were dismissed by the prosecutor; the civilian did time in jail.

Johnson's attorney has confirmed that he's saying Brown stole cigars. Why would he lie about his friend? Why would the clerk come after Brown? Why would Brown grab the clerk? Why would the call go out over police radio? What Ive read is that Brown paid for one pack and then took more. When the clerk confronted him he lashed out.

You seem to be addressing me in your response, but everything after ^this point in your post addresses statements made by others.

All I did was post facts. The story about charging the officer has been uncovered as a false account made to a radio call in show and nothing more, so arguing about that point is worthless.
As for racism, I am pointing out the fact that assuming Brown must be a violent and dangerous criminal who must have attacked the officer depite 4 witnesses stating that he did not and ZERO actual witnesses stating that he did appears pretty darn racist. Even the official incident report fails to mention an assault on Wilson (or anything, for that matter). And when you start to echo words that are eerily similar to a "news" source that is pretty blatant in their overt racism, you are not helping your case.

When the owner of a store says he was not robbed, then he was not robbed. The owner did not call the police, nor did any of his employees. Make of that what you will, but if the entirity of your argument is hinged on somehow proving that Brown must have been attacking Wilson, you have no evidence whatsoever, not even a crime other than jaywalking.

This next statement is not particular to this incident, and goes for everyone who likes to wade in to the deep end of the PPR pool:
When you want to talk about facts, make sure they are facts. Check your references, then check their references, then check their references until you get to the original source. If they don't mention a source, copy a whole paragraph then paste it into a Google search to see where they ripped it off from. You might be surprised to find out how many of the "facts" in your "news" originally come from opinions posted as unverified fact or supposition by bloggers. There have been some cases where I have gone to track down the facts only to fall all the way down the rabbit hole and land on satire sites as the original source but then telephoned so many times that it becomes "common knowledge."

And bookmark Politifact. And Opensecrets. And Hoaxslayer. And Truthorfiction. And Factcheck. And Whowhatwhen. And your persoanl choice of dictionary sites. And Snopes (this one is probably best for anything you see posted on Facebook or Twitter).

Probably the store owner, or family member of the owner did call in the robbery, but the owner is too worried about having his business destroyed to admit it. So the owner is blaming it on a "customer".

"An officer responded to the robbery call, which was made by a customer, but the suspects alleged to be Brown and Johnson were long gone". "However, the store owners said they did not report a robbery and that a customer in the store made the call via their attorney".
http://newsone.com/3047840/mike-brown-shooting-facts/

".... a customer called the police" about the robbery.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/1 ... gar-Theft#

This is consistent with the police dispatch that they transmitted the reported crime for officer Wilson to hear.