Riots in Ferguson, St Louis

[jaimoe]

What this guy said.

he grew up ready to be violent? Sorry, how about ready to be a law abiding citizen? Saying he grew up ready to be violent is a cop out.

What this guy said.

"As a minority individual in the US who comes from a well educated family with no criminal history I feel very insulted when such views are posted. Minorities in general are subject to inherent racism no matter how good they are as citizens. It is improving with each passing generation but to just brush aside the issues makes you as bad as your forefathers."

Conditions are getting better, maybe not fast enough but they are getting better. I don't know that anyone is brushing aside anything and yes, minoroties are subject to inherent racism and that simply will not change over night.

 

[jaimoe]

Is that right? Any one who robs or threatens someone, deserves to be shot at?

What good can come of robbing or threatening? If you put yourself in harm's way anything can happen and unfortunately it did. This is a damn shame all the way around.

 

[Eboue]

My question would be why a suspected criminal expects to be treated equally. If a cop says get on the ground, fecking do it, If you are innocent you'll walk away. If you are not, pay the price for your stupidity and move on.

As for why a suspect expects to be treated equally, do the fifth and fourteenth amendments ring a bell?

To the idea that innocent people will walk away, on what planet do you spend most of your time? There are countless examples of innocent people, a disproportionate number of whom are... wait for it... black, being mistreated, beaten, murdered and convicted for things they didn't do.

 

[afrocentricity]

A few things worth looking at:

Alleged Theft

• 
  
• Attorney For Ferguson Market: NO ONE From His Store Called 911 To Report Cigar Theft
  
• Ferguson chief: Officer didn’t know about robbery
  
• Ferguson Cops Busted? New Video Seems to Show Brown Paying for Cigarillos
  
• Ferguson Store Owner Says He Doesn’t Believe That’s Mike Brown On Surveillance Video
  
• Lawyer: Store didn’t call cops on Michael Brown
  
• Michael Brown, Ferguson Victim Paid For His Rellos

Autopsy

• Autopsy Shows Michael Brown Was Struck at Least 6 Times
• Autopsy suggests Mike Brown DID have arms in “surrender” pose when Darren Wilson killed him
• Brown family’s pathologist wants to testify
• County autopsy: Michael Brown shot 6 times from front, had marijuana in system
• Independent Autopsy Shows No Sign of Struggle in Michael Brown’s Shooting

Darren Wilson

• Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities
• Darren Wilson Violates 1st Amendment “I’ll Lock Your Ass Up”- Arrests Man for Filming
• Darren Wilson Was Racially Profiling Way Before The Michael Brown Incident
• Ferguson, Missouri: The case of the vanishing fractured orbital bone and journalistic integrity
• Jim Hoft’s Unsourced Claim That Officer Darren Wilson Had an “Orbital Blowout Fracture of the Eye Socket”
• Officer Darren Wilson’s story is unbelievable. Literally.
• Photos: Darren Wilson’s injuries following the Michael Brown shooting
• Police chief clarifies comments on Darren Wilson’s job status

Grand Jury

• Case: State of Missouriv v. Darren Wilson (Alt)
• Evidence released by McCulloch
• Fair Trial? St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Raising Funds for Darren Wilson!

Police

• The Pentagon Gave the Ferguson Police Department Military-Grade Weapons
• Raw Video: Tear Gas Canisters
• St Louis County Riot Police Using Tear Gas In Ferguson
• Video: Police lied. Mike Brown was killed 148 feet away from Darren Wilson’s SUV

Protests

• Ferguson Protesters Guard Stores From Looters

Smearing

• 
  
• Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Michael Brown Surveillance Tape
  
• Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape: Report
  
• Missouri’s Governor: Cops Released Mike Brown Robbery Video to “Besmirch” Him
  
• The Ugly Smearing of Michael Brown
  
• Why did Ferguson police release the convenience store video?

Stats

• Ferguson Is 60 Percent Black. Virtually All Its Cops Are White.
• Racial Profiling Data/2013 Agency: Ferguson Police Dept.

Witnesses

• A Eyewitness Explains How Ferguson, Missouri Teen Mike Brown Surrendered & Shot By Police Officer
• All 4 eyewitness accounts of the MURDER of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri
• CNN Obtains Video of Witness Describing Brown Shooting Moments After It Happened
• The complete guide to every public eyewitness interview in the shooting death of Mike Brown
• Eyewitnesses agree Michael Brown was shot with his hands up
• Eyewitness speaks on the murder of Mike Brown
• Eyewitness to Michael Brown shooting recounts his friend’s death
• Media Punked By Fake ‘Josie’ Account Of Michael Brown Shooting
• Michael Brown Eyewitness Stories
• Michael Brown spent his last day with his friend Dorian Johnson. Here’s what Johnson saw.
• New Michael Brown shooting witnesses describe scene
• Police Reportedly Refused Offer to Interview Man Who Was With Michael Brown During Shooting
• Witness: Brown did not reach for police weapon
• Workers who were witnesses provide new perspective on Michael Brown shooting

Is there a reason why most of the recent posters in this thread have ignored your post? Especially the bold bits...

 

[naturalized]

Is there a reason why most of the recent posters in this thread have ignored your post? Especially the bold bits...

Because of their provenance? I identify with the left, but "Counter Culture News" isn't really going to top the NYT on this for me.

As for the "smearing" element though - definitely, and it was an abuse of process, not to mention monumentally fecktarded, for the police to release the video at the height of the looting. Doesn't change the fact that virtually all legitimate news sources agree that Brown did in fact rob that store. It's a non-starter.

 

[gooDevil]

"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Genuine question, though - what do you mean when you say "what we know of Brown as a person"? Because all we really do know for an unequivocal fact is that he robbed a convenience store for cigars minutes before he encountered Wilson. That's not the behaviour of someone about to go to college, either. What else do we know of Brown as a person? I'm far from fully clued up on the case.

I'll definitely grant you the "Wilson's crafted his story" element though - there's more than a little bit of ex post facto reasoning there.

We actually don't know he robbed the store. No store employee has identified Brown as being the guy in the video and the owners have stated that they don't think it was Brown either. Furthermore, the store staff never reported a theft to the police and the footage that the police claims identifies Brown as the 'thief' actually seems to shows the guy paying.

In terms of what we know of Brown's character, there's plenty of statements out there from friends, teachers and acquaintances. Basically the only things that people who've tried to question his character have to go on is the fact that he smoked weed and liked rap music.

"Some aspects".....if this had gone to trial MAYBE, where are you getting this information?

I'm not being vague by saying 'some aspect', I'm expressing the fact that whilst not every witness claims to have a full view of the entire event from start to finish, every account I mentioned refutes a major part of Wilson's story.

For example, one guy saw the start of the incident from his upstairs window but only headed out to the front of his house where he could properly see what was going on after hearing gunfire. By the time he'd gotten out his front door and to a clear vantage point, he'd missed the apparent altercation by the car, as well as Brown running away and turning back, all he saw was Wilson firing the killing shot whilst Brown was hunched over clutching his torso having been hit by the previous bullets. So, whilst he can't refute Wilson's entire narrative, he does refute the claim that Brown was still charging towards Wilson when he was shot dead.

For another example, Wilson claims that he heard about the store robbery on his radio and identified Brown as a possible suspect due to his appearance. He then uses this as justification for seeing Brown as a threat to his life, which in turn is used to justify his use of deadly force. But we've heard from the Chief of Police that Wilson couldn't have known about the robbery before the shooting so that entire train of thought is something Wilson has fabricated to justify his actions.

These points have been made elsewhere so I'm not going to go through every witness. The statements from all the people I mentioned are a google search away, or alternatively post #450 has links to some of them and has just been quoted a couple of posts above.

 

[adexkola]

As for why a suspect expects to be treated equally, do the fifth and fourteenth amendments ring a bell?

To the idea that innocent people will walk away, on what planet do you spend most of your time? There are countless examples of innocent people, a disproportionate number of whom are... wait for it... black, being mistreated, beaten, murdered and convicted for things they didn't do.

He did say life was going fine for him and he just wants to be left alone.

 

[naturalized]

We actually don't know he robbed the store. No store employee has identified Brown as being the guy in the video and the owners have stated that they don't think it was Brown either. Furthermore, the store staff never reported a theft to the police and the footage that the police claims identifies Brown as the 'thief' actually seems to shows the guy paying.

In terms of what we know of Brown's character, there's plenty of statements out there from friends, teachers and acquaintances. Basically the only things that people who've tried to question his character have to go on is the fact that he smoked weed and liked rap music.

Jeff, this is absolutely incorrect. Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend, the most frequently cited pro-Brown eyewitness to the shooting and Mike Brown's accomplice during the robbery, himself acknowledged in court testimony to the grand jury that "Big Mike" took the cigars without paying.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...lson_grand_jury_dorian_johnson_testimony.html (the testimony itself needs some scrolling down, but is absolutely fascinating reading)

For the tl;dr version:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story

"Johnson says he ran into Brown on his way to buy some cigarillos from the convenience store. The two men decided to smoke weed together later, so Brown goes with Johnson to get some cigarillos of his own. Only Brown doesn't buy any cigarillos. He steals them — in fact, he steals a lot of them — and then shoves his way past the clerk.

In Johnson's telling, he's shocked. And he's terrified. Brown, he says, "is basically laughing it off, be cool, be calm…but in my head I’m like, I can’t be calm, I can’t be cool, because I know what just happened and we were on camera." Johnson has a daughter. He has a girlfriend. And now he's Brown's accomplice in a robbery — a robbery that was probably caught on a security camera. His friend has put him and his family in danger."

-----------------------------------------

Vox is not the Daily Mail or Free Republic or some Republican nonsense. Vox is fairly well-known to be left-leaning and even now is adamantly pro-Brown, based on the other times other posters have cited Vox in here. The fact that Mike Brown robbed the store is absolutely not up for debate.

I find it chilling how antisocial, how casually criminal, Michael Brown is in that whole robbery thing, to be honest - weirdly, I'd find him more sympathetic if he was some kind of professional robber who planned his robbery fr months. Instead he's just this guy who walks into a store and decides he wants things and doesn't want to pay. He doesn't even hide what he's doing from the clerk - he just bulldozes his way past him. That's what I mean when I say that the more that comes out about Brown and his family, the easier I find it to believe that he really did assault an officer out of nowhere.

 

[Raoul]

Jeff, this is absolutely incorrect. Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend, the most frequently cited pro-Brown eyewitness to the shooting and Mike Brown's accomplice during the robbery, himself acknowledged in court testimony to the grand jury that "Big Mike" took the cigars without paying.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...lson_grand_jury_dorian_johnson_testimony.html (the testimony itself needs some scrolling down, but is absolutely fascinating reading)

For the tl;dr version:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story

"Johnson says he ran into Brown on his way to buy some cigarillos from the convenience store. The two men decided to smoke weed together later, so Brown goes with Johnson to get some cigarillos of his own. Only Brown doesn't buy any cigarillos. He steals them — in fact, he steals a lot of them — and then shoves his way past the clerk.

In Johnson's telling, he's shocked. And he's terrified. Brown, he says, "is basically laughing it off, be cool, be calm…but in my head I’m like, I can’t be calm, I can’t be cool, because I know what just happened and we were on camera." Johnson has a daughter. He has a girlfriend. And now he's Brown's accomplice in a robbery — a robbery that was probably caught on a security camera. His friend has put him and his family in danger."

-----------------------------------------

Vox is not the Daily Mail or Free Republic or some Republican nonsense. Vox is fairly well-known to be left-leaning and even now is adamantly pro-Brown, based on the other times other posters have cited Vox in here. The fact that Mike Brown robbed the store is absolutely not up for debate.

I find it chilling how antisocial, how casually criminal, Michael Brown is in that whole robbery thing, to be honest - weirdly, I'd find him more sympathetic if he was some kind of professional robber who planned his robbery fr months. Instead he's just this guy who walks into a store and decides he wants things and doesn't want to pay. He doesn't even hide what he's doing from the clerk - he just bulldozes his way past him. That's what I mean when I say that the more that comes out about Brown and his family, the easier I find it to believe that he really did assault an officer out of nowhere.

The shop video is actually quite damning in the sense that the way he bullies and intimidates his way past the owner before leaving suggests he wasn't scared to confront anyone (especially given his size). This would also make it conceivable that he would attempt to challenge Wilson.

 

[langster]

The shop video is actually quite damning in the sense that the way he bullies and intimidates his way past the owner before leaving suggests he wasn't scared to confront anyone (especially given his size). This would also make it conceivable that he would attempt to challenge Wilson.

I agree. But when I first read some of Wilsons quotes, the first thing I thought was that it was absolute bullshit. Completely implausible, very random, and it sounded to me like someone seriously trying to cover their tracks. I bet he would crack under cross examination.

TYT's take on his statement.

 

[jaimoe]

As for why a suspect expects to be treated equally, do the fifth and fourteenth amendments ring a bell?

To the idea that innocent people will walk away, on what planet do you spend most of your time? There are countless examples of innocent people, a disproportionate number of whom are... wait for it... black, being mistreated, beaten, murdered and convicted for things they didn't do.

No doubt, but would common sense dictate you punch and run or allow whatever passes as justice to unfold? Really, I understand the passion and frustration but just thinking rationally you'd have a better chance complying. SO I guess the answer would be I live on planet common sense. You should visit.

 

[jaimoe]

We actually don't know he robbed the store. No store employee has identified Brown as being the guy in the video and the owners have stated that they don't think it was Brown either. Furthermore, the store staff never reported a theft to the police and the footage that the police claims identifies Brown as the 'thief' actually seems to shows the guy paying.

In terms of what we know of Brown's character, there's plenty of statements out there from friends, teachers and acquaintances. Basically the only things that people who've tried to question his character have to go on is the fact that he smoked weed and liked rap music.



I'm not being vague by saying 'some aspect', I'm expressing the fact that whilst not every witness claims to have a full view of the entire event from start to finish, every account I mentioned refutes a major part of Wilson's story.

For example, one guy saw the start of the incident from his upstairs window but only headed out to the front of his house where he could properly see what was going on after hearing gunfire. By the time he'd gotten out his front door and to a clear vantage point, he'd missed the apparent altercation by the car, as well as Brown running away and turning back, all he saw was Wilson firing the killing shot whilst Brown was hunched over clutching his torso having been hit by the previous bullets. So, whilst he can't refute Wilson's entire narrative, he does refute the claim that Brown was still charging towards Wilson when he was shot dead.

For another example, Wilson claims that he heard about the store robbery on his radio and identified Brown as a possible suspect due to his appearance. He then uses this as justification for seeing Brown as a threat to his life, which in turn is used to justify his use of deadly force. But we've heard from the Chief of Police that Wilson couldn't have known about the robbery before the shooting so that entire train of thought is something Wilson has fabricated to justify his actions.

These points have been made elsewhere so I'm not going to go through every witness. The statements from all the people I mentioned are a google search away, or alternatively post #450 has links to some of them and has just been quoted a couple of posts above.

I will check them out when I have time, thank you. As I said, these will come out in civil court I am sure.

 

[naturalized]

I agree. But when I first read some of Wilsons quotes, the first thing I thought was that it was absolute bullshit. Completely implausible, very random, and it sounded to me like someone seriously trying to cover their tracks. I bet he would crack under cross examination.

TYT's take on his statement.

Yeah, as usual the truth turns out to lie somewhere in between the two extremes. I think Vox says it best:

----------------------

"But where Wilson's account presents Brown as completely irrational and borderline suicidal, Johnson's account is more recognizable. It isn't a blameless, kindly beat cop who gets set upon by a rampaging Michael Brown. And nor is it a blameless, kindly Michael Brown who gets set upon by a cold-blooded murderer with a badge.

It's a cop who feels provoked by these two young black men who won't get out of the street, and who tries to teach them a lesson, to put them in their place. His actions escalate the situation, and then the adrenaline floods, and then there's a struggle, and the situation escalates, and escalates, and escalates, and then Darren Wilson shoots Michael Brown and Michael Brown dies.

All this happened in less than two minutes. The fight happened in even less than that. And so there's also room for both accounts to be subjectively right. With the adrenaline pumping Wilson might really have grabbed Brown first, but then thought Brown was trying to grab his gun, or beat him to a pulp, even as he was really trying to get away. Brown might have sworn at the cop who almost clipped him with a truck, but after that, he might have really been trying to simply survive the altercation.

Indeed, we might never get to the truth of what happened in those two minutes on August. But the point of a trial would have been to get us closer. We would have found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways, or if key witnesses completely broke under pressure. We would have heard real cross-examination. We would have seen the strongest case that could be mounted by both the prosecution and the defense. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with these Rashomon-like testimonies, a dead 18-year-old, and a shattered family."

-----------------------------------

 

[JackXX]

Yep I agree with pretty much all of that. edit: although I don't know who's "actions escalate the situation" tbh. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask them to move onto the sidewalk.

 

[Raoul]

There's no doubt Wilson embellished the fear factor in his remarks (he was probably coached to use specific terms by his lawyers). That aside, anyone arguing Wilson was not justified in shooting Brown has to overcome the physical evidence of Brown's blood inside Wilson's cruiser, which corroborates Wilson's account that Brown punched him and tried to grab his gun.

 

[Eboue]

No doubt, but would common sense dictate you punch and run or allow whatever passes as justice to unfold? Really, I understand the passion and frustration but just thinking rationally you'd have a better chance complying. SO I guess the answer would be I live on planet common sense. You should visit.

If planet common sense is the place where you eagerly abdicate civil rights runs that so many generations died to attain, for the purpose of foolishly going along to get along then I won't be joining you.

 

[crappycraperson]

I agree. But when I first read some of Wilsons quotes, the first thing I thought was that it was absolute bullshit. Completely implausible, very random, and it sounded to me like someone seriously trying to cover their tracks. I bet he would crack under cross examination.

TYT's take on his statement.

Wilson's whole account is absolutely not true. It is very much a attorney tailored testimony to justify his actions in the fullest. His assertion n his interview that there was no other way this could have done is plain ridiculous.

 

[Eboue]

There's no doubt Wilson embellished the fear factor in his remarks (he was probably coached to use specific terms by his lawyers). That aside, anyone arguing Wilson was not justified in shooting Brown has to overcome the physical evidence of Brown's blood inside Wilson's cruiser, which corroborates Wilson's account that Brown punched him and tried to grab his gun.

I'm not fully aware of the details because I'm more interested in the societal issues this case illuminates than the case itself but didn't Brown's companion say that Wilson pulled Brown into the car?

 

[Raoul]

Wilson's whole account is absolutely not true. It is very much a attorney tailored testimony to justify his actions in the fullest. His assertion n his interview that there was no other way this could have done is plain ridiculous.

His account could well be completely true, although it was quite obvious he was probably coached to describe in excessively dramatic terms. That wouldn't change the specifics in terms of Brown hitting him or trying to grab his gun.

 

[Raoul]

I'm not fully aware of the details because I'm more interested in the societal issues this case illuminates than the case itself but didn't Brown's companion say that Wilson pulled Brown into the car?

I haven't heard that. Although it seems unlikely that a 210lb cop sitting inside his cruiser with loads of electronics would attempt to pull a 290lb guy into his cruiser.

 

[crappycraperson]

Yeah, as usual the truth turns out to lie somewhere in between the two extremes. I think Vox says it best:

----------------------

"But where Wilson's account presents Brown as completely irrational and borderline suicidal, Johnson's account is more recognizable. It isn't a blameless, kindly beat cop who gets set upon by a rampaging Michael Brown. And nor is it a blameless, kindly Michael Brown who gets set upon by a cold-blooded murderer with a badge.

It's a cop who feels provoked by these two young black men who won't get out of the street, and who tries to teach them a lesson, to put them in their place. His actions escalate the situation, and then the adrenaline floods, and then there's a struggle, and the situation escalates, and escalates, and escalates, and then Darren Wilson shoots Michael Brown and Michael Brown dies.

All this happened in less than two minutes. The fight happened in even less than that. And so there's also room for both accounts to be subjectively right. With the adrenaline pumping Wilson might really have grabbed Brown first, but then thought Brown was trying to grab his gun, or beat him to a pulp, even as he was really trying to get away. Brown might have sworn at the cop who almost clipped him with a truck, but after that, he might have really been trying to simply survive the altercation.

Indeed, we might never get to the truth of what happened in those two minutes on August. But the point of a trial would have been to get us closer. We would have found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways, or if key witnesses completely broke under pressure. We would have heard real cross-examination. We would have seen the strongest case that could be mounted by both the prosecution and the defense. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with these Rashomon-like testimonies, a dead 18-year-old, and a shattered family."

-----------------------------------

Yeap. Perfectly put. It is baffling that we are not having a trial in this case with key witnesses contradicting each other.

 

[crappycraperson]

I haven't heard that. Although it seems unlikely that a 210lb cop sitting inside his cruiser with loads of electronics would attempt to pull a 290lb guy into his cruiser.

Whereas it is more likely that someone already shot would be trying to charge the cop down because he had just gone mad and the only way to stop him was to shoot him in the head.

 

[langster]

Yeah, as usual the truth turns out to lie somewhere in between the two extremes. I think Vox says it best:

----------------------

"But where Wilson's account presents Brown as completely irrational and borderline suicidal, Johnson's account is more recognizable. It isn't a blameless, kindly beat cop who gets set upon by a rampaging Michael Brown. And nor is it a blameless, kindly Michael Brown who gets set upon by a cold-blooded murderer with a badge.

It's a cop who feels provoked by these two young black men who won't get out of the street, and who tries to teach them a lesson, to put them in their place. His actions escalate the situation, and then the adrenaline floods, and then there's a struggle, and the situation escalates, and escalates, and escalates, and then Darren Wilson shoots Michael Brown and Michael Brown dies.

All this happened in less than two minutes. The fight happened in even less than that. And so there's also room for both accounts to be subjectively right. With the adrenaline pumping Wilson might really have grabbed Brown first, but then thought Brown was trying to grab his gun, or beat him to a pulp, even as he was really trying to get away. Brown might have sworn at the cop who almost clipped him with a truck, but after that, he might have really been trying to simply survive the altercation.

Indeed, we might never get to the truth of what happened in those two minutes on August. But the point of a trial would have been to get us closer. We would have found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways, or if key witnesses completely broke under pressure. We would have heard real cross-examination. We would have seen the strongest case that could be mounted by both the prosecution and the defense. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with these Rashomon-like testimonies, a dead 18-year-old, and a shattered family."

-----------------------------------

I too pretty much agree with all of that.

There's no doubt Wilson embellished the fear factor in his remarks (he was probably coached to use specific terms by his lawyers). That aside, anyone arguing Wilson was not justified in shooting Brown has to overcome the physical evidence of Brown's blood inside Wilson's cruiser, which corroborates Wilson's account that Brown punched him and tried to grab his gun.

Surely that is another reason it should have gone to trial?

Prosecution or defence?


Inconsistencies in Police reports.


It all stinks. Some of the statistics quoted in those two clips are frightening. Corruption all the way down.

What's done is done. I just feel sorry for the lads family and everyone else this is going to continue to affect.

 

[Raoul]

Whereas it is more likely that someone already shot would be trying to charge the cop down because he had just gone mad and the only way to stop him was to shoot him in the head.

Absolutely. Once someone assaults a cop and tries to grab his gun (again supported by physical evidence) the cop has the legal purview to kill him.

 

[Raoul]

Yeap. Perfectly put. It is baffling that we are not having a trial in this case with key witnesses contradicting each other.

Because the physical evidence only supports Wilson's account as well as the account of one of the witnesses. In order for it to go to trial, the grand jury would need the physical evidence to not support Wilson's account and support the accounts of others who said it all happened differently.

 

[crappycraperson]

Absolutely. Once someone assaults a cop and tries to grab his gun (again supported by physical evidence) the cop has the legal purview to kill him.

It has already been established that Wilson shot him from a distance. The point is if it was absolutely necessary to kill Brown or was injuring him enough. There is no physical evidence to support that Brown was still charging Wilson after getting shot. The other eye witness you talk about, already changed his testimony like others at different times.

Regardless of who is right, as already put the point of trail would have been to get to the truth. If it was all down to Wilson's testimony then it is absurd that he was not cross examined for it.

 

[afrocentricity]

Absolutely. Once someone assaults a cop and tries to grab his gun (again supported by physical evidence) the cop has the legal purview to kill him.

What physical evidence supports this? I must be missing something here...

 

[Raoul]

It has already been established that Wilson shot him from a distance. The point is if it was absolutely necessary to kill Brown or was injuring him enough. There is no physical evidence to support that Brown was still charging Wilson after getting shot. The other eye witness you talk about, already changed his testimony like others at different times.

Regardless of who is right, as already put the point of trail would have been to get to the truth. If it was all down to Wilson's testimony then it is absurd that he was not cross examined for it.

The distance becomes irrelevant once it has been established that Brown is a physical threat. Once the initial sequence of Brown hitting Wilson and trying to grab his gun take place, the justification to use lethal force (shoot Brown dead) becomes active. At that point, Wilson can shoot him and be on solid legal ground because he was already established as a physical threat who may have been armed.

 

[Raoul]

What physical evidence supports this? I must be missing something here...

Brown's blood splatter inside Wilson's vehicle. Apparently the grand jury deduced that if Brown's blood was inside Wilson's SUV cruiser, it was sufficient evidence to corroborate Wilson's account that Brown attempted to grab his gun, at which point Wilson attempted to shoot twice and the gun jammed. The third time he pulled the trigger it fired leaving Brown's blood splatter in specific places inside his car.

 

[crappycraperson]

The distance becomes irrelevant once it has been established that Brown is a physical threat. Once the initial sequence of Brown hitting Wilson and trying to grab his gun take place, the justification to use lethal force (shoot Brown dead) becomes active. At that point, Wilson can shoot him and be on solid legal ground because he was already established as a physical threat who may have been armed.

It has not been established that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun though. Presence of Brown's blood in the car only suggests that an altercation happened at the window of the car, it is only Wilson's testimony that he reached for his gun, a testimony that should have been tested in a trial.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Jeff, this is absolutely incorrect. Dorian Johnson - Mike Brown's friend, the most frequently cited pro-Brown eyewitness to the shooting and Mike Brown's accomplice during the robbery, himself acknowledged in court testimony to the grand jury that "Big Mike" took the cigars without paying.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...lson_grand_jury_dorian_johnson_testimony.html (the testimony itself needs some scrolling down, but is absolutely fascinating reading)

For the tl;dr version:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story

"Johnson says he ran into Brown on his way to buy some cigarillos from the convenience store. The two men decided to smoke weed together later, so Brown goes with Johnson to get some cigarillos of his own. Only Brown doesn't buy any cigarillos. He steals them — in fact, he steals a lot of them — and then shoves his way past the clerk.

In Johnson's telling, he's shocked. And he's terrified. Brown, he says, "is basically laughing it off, be cool, be calm…but in my head I’m like, I can’t be calm, I can’t be cool, because I know what just happened and we were on camera." Johnson has a daughter. He has a girlfriend. And now he's Brown's accomplice in a robbery — a robbery that was probably caught on a security camera. His friend has put him and his family in danger."

-----------------------------------------

Vox is not the Daily Mail or Free Republic or some Republican nonsense. Vox is fairly well-known to be left-leaning and even now is adamantly pro-Brown, based on the other times other posters have cited Vox in here. The fact that Mike Brown robbed the store is absolutely not up for debate.

I find it chilling how antisocial, how casually criminal, Michael Brown is in that whole robbery thing, to be honest - weirdly, I'd find him more sympathetic if he was some kind of professional robber who planned his robbery fr months. Instead he's just this guy who walks into a store and decides he wants things and doesn't want to pay. He doesn't even hide what he's doing from the clerk - he just bulldozes his way past him. That's what I mean when I say that the more that comes out about Brown and his family, the easier I find it to believe that he really did assault an officer out of nowhere.

That's fair enough, sorry if I've gotten my facts wrong. The fact that the store aren't backing up the stealing thing is confusing to me, but its a confusing case all round and I suppose its entirely likely that they might not have bothered calling 911 over something so minor and understandably didn't want to get involved following the shooting.

Not that it particularly changes my view on the case, shoplifting some cigarillos does not suddenly make him a terrible person in my eyes. Saying that because he stole something means he's capable of assault doesn't logically follow and comes off as a little agenda-driven. Out of interest what has 'come out about Brown and his family' that makes you think he's got prior for assault?

The one thing I'm sure most people can agree on is that it's a bit fishy that people (not aimed at anyone on here in particular) are totally happy to use Johnson's account as proof of Brown's poor behaviour but entirely dismissive of it when it implicates Wilson.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The distance becomes irrelevant once it has been established that Brown is a physical threat. Once the initial sequence of Brown hitting Wilson and trying to grab his gun take place, the justification to use lethal force (shoot Brown dead) becomes active. At that point, Wilson can shoot him and be on solid legal ground because he was already established as a physical threat who may have been armed.

Really? That can't be true.

I'm not fully up to speed with American law here but surely grabbing for a cops gun is not automatic justification for summary execution from that point onwards?

Say a cop grabbed someone (for whatever reason) and that person tries to get at his gun, then backs away with his hands up and is clearly unarmed. Is the cop entitled to put one between his eyes in that scenario? Madness, if true. Situations evolve and the police have a moral responsibility (and surely legal?) to adapt to the evolving situation and only use lethal force as an absolutely last resort.

 

[afrocentricity]

Brown's blood splatter inside Wilson's vehicle. Apparently the grand jury deduced that if Brown's blood was inside Wilson's SUV cruiser, it was sufficient evidence to corroborate Wilson's account that Brown attempted to grab his gun, at which point Wilson attempted to shoot twice and the gun jammed. The third time he pulled the trigger it fired leaving Brown's blood splatter in specific places inside his car.

And that's enough for you? Genuine question...

 

[Raoul]

Really? That can't be true.

I'm not fully up to speed with American law here but surely grabbing for a cops gun is not automatic justification for summary execution.

Say a cop grabbed someone (for whatever reason) and that person tries to get at his gun, then backs away with his hands up and is clearly unarmed. Is the cop entitled to put one between his eyes in that scenario? Madness, if true. Situations evolve and the police have a moral responsibility (and surely legal?) to adapt to the evolving situation and only use lethal force as an absolutely last resort.

I'm no legal scholar but am pretty sure when an officer of the law is physically assaulted and have someone try to take their weapon, that they would be within their legal purview to kill that person. In fact, I'm fairly certain that would apply to private citizens as well. If someone who has a legal concealed gun is assaulted and fear for their life, they can kill that person. Remember, this is America we're talking about.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I'm no legal scholar but am pretty sure when an officer of the law is physically assaulted and have someone try to take their weapon, that they would be within their legal purview to kill that person. In fact, I'm fairly certain that would apply to private citizens as well. If someone who has a legal concealed gun is assaulted and fear for their life, they can kill that person. Remember, this is America we're talking about.

We're both debating without knowing the law (s'all in the caf yo) here but I would find it amazing that - in the scenario I describe above - a policeman would be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner to an unarmed civilian who no longer poses any kind of threat to his safety. Really scary, if true.

 

[Getsme]

I'm no legal scholar but am pretty sure when an officer of the law is physically assaulted and have someone try to take their weapon, that they would be within their legal purview to kill that person. In fact, I'm fairly certain that would apply to private citizens as well. If someone who has a legal concealed gun is assaulted and fear for their life, they can kill that person. Remember, this is America we're talking about.

If that’s true then by feck it’s no wonder there are so many Police killings and murders in America

 

[Raoul]

And that's enough for you? Genuine question...

Personally I would've liked to have seen a trial take place, but my desire for a trial is rooted more in wanting to avoid the riots that have taken place and the obvious need for a social conversation to take place, than whether or not Wilson was guilty. On strictly legal terms, the law is on his side and so I'm not at all surprised the grand jury concluded there wasn't enough prosecute him with.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I'm no legal scholar but am pretty sure when an officer of the law is physically assaulted and have someone try to take their weapon, that they would be within their legal purview to kill that person. In fact, I'm fairly certain that would apply to private citizens as well. If someone who has a legal concealed gun is assaulted and fear for their life, they can kill that person. Remember, this is America we're talking about.

According to the ruling you cited to me earlier, killing the person is only justified if the officer thinks that that person is still a significant danger to the community or the officer at that moment. So regardless of whether Brown grabbed the gun in the car (which the autopsy reports still maintain is in doubt), if he's not armed and/or dangerous at the time he is shot in the head by Wilson there's no justification.

Which leads us back to debating the reliability of Wilson's testimony and the relevance of the other eyewitness accounts.

 

[Raoul]

We're both debating without knowing the law (s'all in the caf yo) here but I would find it amazing that - in the scenario I describe above - a policeman would be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner to an unarmed civilian who no longer poses any kind of threat to his safety. Really scary, if true.

It is quite scary, but cops have judicial discretion to kill people if they can prove that person was a danger to them and/or the community or that the cop feared for their own life.