Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Mumbles]

You do not need a lawyer unless you are being charged with a crime, being sued or plan to sue somebody. I used "mere" witness as she is not one of the groups I just listed.

This is several days late, but I'm going to post, just to call bullshit on this assertion. A lawyer is a good idea at any point where you interact with the law, because they're the experts on how the law works.

I hired a lawyer to help me with dealing with my deceased father's estate. There's no way that I could have understood what the actual law says without him on my side. So...no. and that's a cut and dry, someone died in their own apartment case. So no, you are absolutely wrong.

 

[Derec]

I hired a lawyer to help me with dealing with my deceased father's estate. There's no way that I could have understood what the actual law says without him on my side. So...no. and that's a cut and dry, someone died in their own apartment case. So no, you are absolutely wrong.

So you were a direct participant in the proceedings, not just a witness to them.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I hired a lawyer to help me with dealing with my deceased father's estate. There's no way that I could have understood what the actual law says without him on my side. So...no. and that's a cut and dry, someone died in their own apartment case. So no, you are absolutely wrong.

So you were a direct participant in the proceedings, not just a witness to them.

the part Derec missed in Mumbles post.

A lawyer is a good idea at any point where you interact with the law, because they're the experts on how the law works.

 

[Derec]

Because WE aren't the ones who have to hand down an indictment for the officers in question if and when it comes to that. There's no reason to release that information to the PUBLIC except to try and salvage the department's reputation.

Releasing the information to the public does not preclude it being used as evidence in a trial (if it ever comes to that). But it does help us paint a more accurate picture of what happened. Had it been suppressed, we'd still think of Brown as an innocent who had no reason to attack the cop.

Public opinion is shaped by MANY things, not least of which is the actions of the police department in response to the protestors, and also the public's own experiences with police brutality.

And I do not see why information not favorable to the dead guy should be censored. It would have merely inflamed the rioters (let's be real, people throwing Molotov cocktails and shooting at police are not "protesters") even more if the erroneous boy-scout image of the deceased had remained unchallenged.

Why should his supporters have a monopoly on shaping public opinion?

Because public opinion isn't a judicial process and cannot acquit or convict the officer or the department.

That's not answering the question. Releasing information not favorable to Brown is not going to affect the possible trial any more than releasing information favorable to him. So why is it ok to release latter, but somehow not ok to release the former?
One reason only: you wanted pro-Brown misconceptions to remain and unfairly shape public perceptions. Shades of Rodney King (where his attacking the police prior to the beating has been ignored) and Trayvon Martin (multiple school suspensions, probable burglary, history of drug use and dealing - imagine if all these facts had been censored).

- - - Updated - - -

A lawyer is a good idea at any point where you interact with the law, because they're the experts on how the law works.

And I still want to know who is paying for all of them, because the lawyers can coach the witnesses to bend what they saw in a particular direction. He who pays the piper calls the tune after all.

 

[Derec]

The hat should be visible in the post mortem footage.

Not necessarily if it fell next to the police car.

My point is less about actually IDing the person in the robbery video than it is about the police reports and timelines. Unless someone from the store identified Brown by name (which should have been made clear in the report) there should have been no mention by name. As it stands, what is coming out of the police reads as a clumsy justification to the unjustified shooting of an unarmed teenager.

There is no doubt that Brown is the suspect from the robbery, given that his friend admitted to as much. I do not think anybody from the store identified him by name, but after the shooting police were able to put two and two together. This footage was released several days after the shooting, remember?

Re: HVAC program. Personally I think he chose a good and useful line of work, one that would have provided needed services and the opportunity to provide well for himself.

No doubt. But somebody completing an HVAC training course is not a "college graduate". Trying to make him more academically minded than he was is dishonest.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Releasing the information to the public does not preclude it being used as evidence in a trial (if it ever comes to that). But it does help us paint a more accurate picture of what happened. Had it been suppressed, we'd still think of Brown as an innocent who had no reason to attack the cop.

Public opinion is shaped by MANY things, not least of which is the actions of the police department in response to the protestors, and also the public's own experiences with police brutality.

And I do not see why information not favorable to the dead guy should be censored. It would have merely inflamed the rioters (let's be real, people throwing Molotov cocktails and shooting at police are not "protesters") even more if the erroneous boy-scout image of the deceased had remained unchallenged.

Why should his supporters have a monopoly on shaping public opinion?

Because public opinion isn't a judicial process and cannot acquit or convict the officer or the department.

That's not answering the question. Releasing information not favorable to Brown is not going to affect the possible trial any more than releasing information favorable to him. So why is it ok to release latter, but somehow not ok to release the former?
One reason only: you wanted pro-Brown misconceptions to remain and unfairly shape public perceptions. Shades of Rodney King (where his attacking the police prior to the beating has been ignored) and Trayvon Martin (multiple school suspensions, probable burglary, history of drug use and dealing - imagine if all these facts had been censored).

- - - Updated - - -

A lawyer is a good idea at any point where you interact with the law, because they're the experts on how the law works.

And I still want to know who is paying for all of them, because the lawyers can coach the witnesses to bend what they saw in a particular direction. He who pays the piper calls the tune after all.

you're reaching
And its sad.

You have a dead body, with six bullets, and a probability that the victim may have been on his knees at least for some of those shots.

But don't give up

You may be able to convict the dead guy of something yet

 

[Sabine Grant]

A point I need to bring up : why the need to shoot to kill rather than shooting to disable? In this situation, it makes NO doubt that Brown was unarmed as he was running away. If Officer Wilson's intention was to apprehend Brown as he was running away, why 6 shots at least one of them being confirmed at this point as being lethal?

Are we to settle for any LEO empowering himself to act as a Judge or Jury to deliver what is the equivalent of a death sentence?

 

[Derec]

you're reaching
And its sad.

How so?

You have a dead body, with six bullets, and a probability that the victim may have been on his knees at least for some of those shots.

What kind of probability? We have a witness (heard on the video shot by one of the looky-loos after the shooting) saying that Brown charged the officer. We have Baden (who was hired by the family to perform a private autopsy) who says that the gunshot wounds are consistent with Brown charging the officer as well as with him surrendering.

You may be able to convict the dead guy of something yet

We already know he was a thieving thug. Unfortunately he is beyond being convicted of anything any more.

 

[Toni]

Not necessarily if it fell next to the police car.

My point is less about actually IDing the person in the robbery video than it is about the police reports and timelines. Unless someone from the store identified Brown by name (which should have been made clear in the report) there should have been no mention by name. As it stands, what is coming out of the police reads as a clumsy justification to the unjustified shooting of an unarmed teenager.

There is no doubt that Brown is the suspect from the robbery, given that his friend admitted to as much. I do not think anybody from the store identified him by name, but after the shooting police were able to put two and two together. This footage was released several days after the shooting, remember?

Re: HVAC program. Personally I think he chose a good and useful line of work, one that would have provided needed services and the opportunity to provide well for himself.

No doubt. But somebody completing an HVAC training course is not a "college graduate". Trying to make him more academically minded than he was is dishonest.

In my area and apparently in Brown's, HVAC training is completed at local community colleges as well as at tech colleges. Completing such a program does indeed make one a college graduate. No one is claiming that Michael Brown was a college graduate but it is a fact that he was just days from starting a college program for HVAC. Even though he was a black kid.

 

[PyramidHead]

A point I need to bring up : why the need to shoot to kill rather than shooting to disable? In this situation, it makes NO doubt that Brown was unarmed as he was running away. If Officer Wilson's intention was to apprehend Brown as he was running away, why 6 shots at least one of them being confirmed at this point as being lethal?

Are we to settle for any LEO empowering himself to act as a Judge or Jury to deliver what is the equivalent of a death sentence?

This question hangs in my mind in all of these types of cases. Why don't cops utilize non-lethal projectile weapons? Getting hit in the back with a high-velocity rubber bullet (even a paintball!) hurts like hell, and 6 of those would have knocked him flat.

 

[dismal]

A point I need to bring up : why the need to shoot to kill rather than shooting to disable? In this situation, it makes NO doubt that Brown was unarmed as he was running away. If Officer Wilson's intention was to apprehend Brown as he was running away, why 6 shots at least one of them being confirmed at this point as being lethal?

Are we to settle for any LEO empowering himself to act as a Judge or Jury to deliver what is the equivalent of a death sentence?

Yes, since the officer was fast enough to run past Brown and shoot him from the front as he was running away he probably could have just tripped him or something.

 

[Toni]

How so?

You have a dead body, with six bullets, and a probability that the victim may have been on his knees at least for some of those shots.

What kind of probability? We have a witness (heard on the video shot by one of the looky-loos after the shooting) saying that Brown charged the officer. We have Baden (who was hired by the family to perform a private autopsy) who says that the gunshot wounds are consistent with Brown charging the officer as well as with him surrendering.

We also have at least 3 other witnesses who give different testimony than that of the unidentified person whose voice was captured on the video. Only one of those 3 witnesses has any connection to Brown aside from witnessing the shooting.

Of course you are certain that the 4th, unidentified person whose words are not distinct is the only real, true reliable witness. Aside from the police officer who shot Brown.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

you're reaching
And its sad.

You have a dead body, with six bullets, and a probability that the victim may have been on his knees at least for some of those shots.

But don't give up

You may be able to convict the dead guy of something yet

6 bullets from the front.

In other words he was not running away when the cop fired.

I don't mind some of the shots being while he was on his knees--the human brain/body is capable of firing additional shots considerably faster than the brain is capable of deciding the target is no longer a threat. Thus shots being fired as the target goes down is likely.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't mind some of the shots being while he was on his knees--the human brain/body is capable of firing additional shots considerably faster than the brain is capable of deciding the target is no longer a threat. Thus shots being fired as the target goes down is likely.

I am pretty sure any target minds. And police are supposed to be trained to act in a rational and appropriate fashion not on emotion or "instinct".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A point I need to bring up : why the need to shoot to kill rather than shooting to disable? In this situation, it makes NO doubt that Brown was unarmed as he was running away. If Officer Wilson's intention was to apprehend Brown as he was running away, why 6 shots at least one of them being confirmed at this point as being lethal?

Are we to settle for any LEO empowering himself to act as a Judge or Jury to deliver what is the equivalent of a death sentence?

You bring this up repeatedly and it's wrong every time.

Other than in very narrow circumstances there is no such thing as shoot to disable. You shoot to stop, the reality is that such shots are likely to kill. While there are spots that could disable without killing they're beyond human ability to hit on a moving target. Under combat conditions the typical trained shooter will be doing well to hit the torso, let alone a small target deep within the body.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A point I need to bring up : why the need to shoot to kill rather than shooting to disable? In this situation, it makes NO doubt that Brown was unarmed as he was running away. If Officer Wilson's intention was to apprehend Brown as he was running away, why 6 shots at least one of them being confirmed at this point as being lethal?

Are we to settle for any LEO empowering himself to act as a Judge or Jury to deliver what is the equivalent of a death sentence?

This question hangs in my mind in all of these types of cases. Why don't cops utilize non-lethal projectile weapons? Getting hit in the back with a high-velocity rubber bullet (even a paintball!) hurts like hell, and 6 of those would have knocked him flat.

1) Pain is useless against somebody on enough drugs. The cops can't rely on it as a means of control.

2) Knocking him flat is a Hollywood myth. Newton says the bullet will not knock the target any more than the gun knocks the shooter.

 

[Derec]

Of course you are certain that the 4th, unidentified person whose words are not distinct is the only real, true reliable witness. Aside from the police officer who shot Brown.

No, I do not claim certainty. Quite the opposite, I claim uncertainty. And I do not think calling the police officer "murderer" and the incident "murder of Michael Brown" is right or fruitful while there is so much uncertainty.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course you are certain that the 4th, unidentified person whose words are not distinct is the only real, true reliable witness. Aside from the police officer who shot Brown.

No, I do not claim certainty. Quite the opposite, I claim uncertainty. And I do not think calling the police officer "murderer" and the incident "murder of Michael Brown" is right or fruitful while there is so much uncertainty.

It was a shooting that resulting in death. It may end up being justifiable homicide, but it is still a homicide. Given that stopping Mr. Brown for jaywalking (!!!!!) started this entire tragedy, I think it is reasonable to place the onus on the police to show this was a righteous act on the part of Officer Wilson.

 

[Sabine Grant]

A point I need to bring up : why the need to shoot to kill rather than shooting to disable? In this situation, it makes NO doubt that Brown was unarmed as he was running away. If Officer Wilson's intention was to apprehend Brown as he was running away, why 6 shots at least one of them being confirmed at this point as being lethal?

Are we to settle for any LEO empowering himself to act as a Judge or Jury to deliver what is the equivalent of a death sentence?

You bring this up repeatedly and it's wrong every time.

Actually, this is the first time in this thread that I brought up that specific point. And no matter how specific I was in my wording, it appears you are misunderstanding what the actual point is.

I will repeat it : are we to settle for LEOs acting as Judge and Jury by delivering and executing what is the equivalent of a death sentence?

Other than in very narrow circumstances there is no such thing as shoot to disable. You shoot to stop, the reality is that such shots are likely to kill.

You mean to tell me that trained LEOs are given a pass to shoot to kill when dealing with a circumstance when the running away party is UNarmed and further the same running away party presenting NO threat of death or imminent harm to the pursuing LEO? You do realize that if such "pass" existed, it would mean that indeed law enforcement officers cross over into the Judiciary system.

While there are spots that could disable without killing they're beyond human ability to hit on a moving target.

But a fatal shot to the head is somehow easier on a moving target? And again and again when the said target is UNarmed and presenting no imminent threat of death or harm to the pursuing LEO.

Under combat conditions the typical trained shooter will be doing well to hit the torso, let alone a small target deep within the body.

To my knowledge Law Enforcement Officers should NOT be confused for military personnel trained to respond in a combat situation to armed enemies who do present a threat of death or harm to the said military personnel in a combat situation.

What you seem to be attempting to do here is to validate and justify the use of lethal force and resulting death of Michael Brown. That may not be your intention, but in this specific case, there was NO justification for Officer Wilson to shoot to kill. It is undeniable that he shot Brown to kill.

 

[Sabine Grant]

No, I do not claim certainty. Quite the opposite, I claim uncertainty. And I do not think calling the police officer "murderer" and the incident "murder of Michael Brown" is right or fruitful while there is so much uncertainty.

It was a shooting that resulting in death. It may end up being justifiable homicide, but it is still a homicide. Given that stopping Mr. Brown for jaywalking (!!!!!) started this entire tragedy, I think it is reasonable to place the onus on the police to show this was a righteous act on the part of Officer Wilson.

I agree 100%. Undeniably the onus is on the police depart. to demonstrate that Officer Wilson was in a situation where shooting to kill was the only option.