Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, some guy on page one insisted that he should be able to shoot black people. But it wasn't Loren.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A black what, Loren? Is it so hard to say PERSON when talking about black people?

is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

because all us black folk are liars? Is that it Loren?

I didn't say all.

no, not all black people. I'm sure you didn't mean to include the population of Chad, for example. Just black folk giving eye witness testimony. They lie. Their sworn statements can't be trusted until verified, right? I mean you can count on there being some who lie no matter what. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And what if all the witnesses say the same thing, they all say the victim was surrendering? Is that enough? Or does that just mean they are all suspect?

Just watch the news--if a black is shot with witnesses some will say he was no threat. Witnesses or not some will say he wouldn't have hurt anyone.

"Just watch the news?"

FAIL!

Try again.

And this time make me believe.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You guys really don't like unpleasant truths, do you?

I'm not saying all blacks are racists or dishonest. I'm saying enough are that we see the bogus witnesses and character witnesses show up.

These new witnesses are white.

 

[Derec]

Isn't this a strawman? I don't think anyone is suggesting that the killing was premeditated. A bad judgment in the field does not have to equate premeditation.

No it isn't. I have seen people call for (first of second) degree murder charges. And Brown's friend has claimed that Brown was attacked by the police officer rather that Brown attacking him, which would make it at least 2nd degree murder. Before we knew of Brown's robbery people reacted to police officer's assertion that he was attacked with incredulity - "why would Brown have done it". Yet the robbery offers a reason why he would have done it and makes the cop's statement much more credible.

And enough of this "gentle giant" garbage.

I agree it's garbage.

Stealing cigars doesn't jump right up to equating gangbanger.

First of all, he wasn't just stealing. Him assaulting the clerk makes it a 2nd degree robbery which is a felony. As to whether this was a tragic one time youthful transgression or a pattern of behavior we don't know - in part because his juvenile criminal record has not been unsealed.

Heck, Rodney King was guilty as heck of charges, yet, he didn't deserve getting beaten down.

He certainly wasn't worth rioting over. And I'd agree with you if the police beat him down as first course of action. But they tried to subdue him several times (including with a taser) without success - he kept attacking them. The police officers should not have been convicted of any criminal charges or federal "civil rights" charges - internal discipline (say a timed period of desk duty) would have been sufficient. Of course the feds wanted to offer them as sacrifices to appease the rioters.

The question is, did the officer have a reasonable suspicion that his life was in immediate danger and could he have acted in no other way to preserve his own life.

I think he probably did initially. As to continued shooting when Brown surrendered (if that's what happened) that would be excessive force but keep in mind that the whole incident played out in seconds and that he is 100% flesh and blood and not RoboCop.

 

[Derec]

I do not think Derec is grasping the nuance at play here : was Michael Brown a threat to Officer Wilson at the time Officer Wilson shot him several times to include 2 shots to the head one being fatal.

I think I am. Both ends of the interaction are highly important and need to be examined (see below).

The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

Of course these new witnesses will have to be questioned by the investigators as well. There is also one witness who was caught in one video making a spontaneous exclamation that Brown was coming at the police officer. He needs to be questioned as well.

What derec is not getting is that no matter which criminal background Brown may have had, if he indeed indicated surrender by putting his hands up, Officer Wilson was to acknowledge it as such and NOT pursue to discharge his weapon on Brown to the culminating point of a fatal shot and resulting fatal wound to Brown's head.

But whether or not Brown attacked Wilson plays a role in whether this is a murder situation or merely excessive force. Keep in mind that the whole incident took only seconds and that . That Wilson might have continued firing even after danger was over (when evidence suggests that there was definite danger initially justifying him opening fire) is not professional and is probably excessive force but is not murder.
If there never was justification for opening fire (for example if Brown's friend was telling the truth) than it would be murder. So what happened first plays a crucial role.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You guys really don't like unpleasant truths, do you?

I'm not saying all blacks are racists or dishonest. I'm saying enough are that we see the bogus witnesses and character witnesses show up.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think he probably did initially. As to continued shooting when Brown surrendered (if that's what happened) that would be excessive force but keep in mind that the whole incident played out in seconds and that he is 100% flesh and blood and not RoboCop.

You are still responsible for your actions even if you are seeing red. This is the reason we have 2nd degree murder. Police officers are trained to keep cool. The cops I know have talked at length about this and agree that charges should be brought unless some extraordinary evidence comes forth -- none of which would involve a juvenile record.

 

[Derec]

No. It doesn't change a thing. Actions are right or wrong when they are taken. The action was not taken with any evaluation of the kid'a character, so the actual character of Michael Brown does not factor into whether it was a good shoot.

What you are saying would be true if we knew exactly what had happened. But we don't - we have conflicting accounts and things like character and background of the participants is relevant to deciding which of the stories is more probable here.

If you gun down an old lady for pleasure because you can, with no consideration of her character, you are guilty of being a murderer of old ladies. It does not make you a hero if you later find out she' less a serial killer.

Are you alleging Wilson gunned Brown "for pleasure because he could"?
In any case, this is almost a good example, except you have to change one detail. I would be saying (to make it more analogous to the Brown case), in my defense, that the old lady was attacking me and I acted in self defense. And if we all find out later that she was a serial killer that would make my defense much more credible and probable. The fact that the old lady was a serial killer made her act like a serial killer whether or not I knew that she was one when she attacked me. Likewise Brown acted like a thug because he was a thug whether or not Wilson knew he was a thug or not. Back to the old lady. Should the media be prevented from publishing the fact that she was a serial killer? Should the entire country wrongly think me a killer of defenseless old ladies because they are not allowed to know the salient fact that she is a serial killer which is why she attacked me? If the case came to trial, should the jury be prevented from finding out that she was a serial killer? Should I be wrongfully convicted because the jury, absent that salient fact, disbelieves my story that I was merely defending myself from her attack? I say that all salient facts should be released, even if they do not cast a favorable light on the deceased.

The cop similarly had no foreknowledge of whether brown was a bad person or a good one.

If he is telling the truth Brown attacked him. Him robbing a store minutes before makes that story much more credible than if he had been a "good kid" as the family was claiming. His juvenile record would have bolstered that probability further.

He didn't care enough to find out and include that in his mental calculus. If I were a judge, I would throw out any testimony on the character
Of Michael Brown, because that had no bearing on the shoot.

Of course it had a bearing on the shoot as it had bearing on Brown's state of mind and his actions (attacking the cop).

 

[Derec]

You are still responsible for your actions even if you are seeing red. This is the reason we have 2nd degree murder. Police officers are trained to keep cool. The cops I know have talked at length about this and agree that charges should be brought unless some extraordinary evidence comes forth -- none of which would involve a juvenile record.

This would not make it 2nd degree murder if the initial shots were justified. More like manslaughter. Ironically both voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree robbery (what Brown had just committed) are both class B felonies in Missouri. So had Brown been caught rather than killed he might have faced the same penalty (5-15 years) that Wilson might face. Poetic justice or what?

In any case I am not arguing that if Brown was gunned down after surrendering that Wilson is not guilty of anything. Rather I am arguing that in that case the crime he is guilty of (and thus the penalty) depends on whether the initial shoot was justified or not. And that's where Brown's background comes in.

 

[RavenSky]

Juvenile records are usually sealed. And they usually stay sealed and to get them unsealed, you have to prove a compelling interest other than nosy Parkers in the internet wanting to hate on a dead young man.

The exception to this would be any felony convictions, which they've already confirmed he didn't have.

 

[Rhea]

Except when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

Ho. Lee. Shit.

 

[Arctish]

A black what, Loren? Is it so hard to say PERSON when talking about black people?

is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

because all us black folk are liars? Is that it Loren?

lol, good god.

(((Athena)))

Seconded.

(((Athena)))

 

[ksen]

Except when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

Ho. Lee. Shit.

Loren's posts are the gifts that keep on giving.

 

[Derec]

Juvenile records are usually sealed. And they usually stay sealed and to get them unsealed, you have to prove a compelling interest other than nosy Parkers in the internet wanting to hate on a dead young man.

The exception to this would be any felony convictions, which they've already confirmed he didn't have.

No, they only confirmed he didn't have any "serious felonies". And of course there is a possibility of felony crimes being downgraded to misdemeanors, especially if there was a plea bargain. I.e. a robbery could be downgraded to a theft.

 

[none]

The exception to this would be any felony convictions, which they've already confirmed he didn't have.

No, they only confirmed he didn't have any "serious felonies". And of course there is a possibility of felony crimes being downgraded to misdemeanors, especially if there was a plea bargain. I.e. a robbery could be downgraded to a theft.

something which seven year old children commit everyday
serious, dangerous, so fucking dangerous that seven year olds can do it...

 

[Derec]

something which seven year old children commit everyday
serious, dangerous, so fucking dangerous that seven year olds can do it...

When a 7 year old steals we can say he did not know any better. When a 17 year old steals that's very different. Especially when they graduate to violent robbery when they are 18.

 

[none]

something which seven year old children commit everyday
serious, dangerous, so fucking dangerous that seven year olds can do it...

When a 7 year old steals we can say he did not know any better. When a 17 year old steals that's very different. Especially when they graduate to violent robbery when they are 18.

I am crying a river /sarcasm
And Brown didn't deserve to die for either a record of infraction or some cheap cigars.

 

[Arctish]

The exception to this would be any felony convictions, which they've already confirmed he didn't have.

No, they only confirmed he didn't have any "serious felonies". And of course there is a possibility of felony crimes being downgraded to misdemeanors, especially if there was a plea bargain. I.e. a robbery could be downgraded to a theft.

That's true. Even something as serious as assaulting a police officer can be downgraded to a misdemeanor offense in a plea bargain. However, even someone who has pled guilty to assaulting a police officer is presumed innocent if/when charged with another assault. So we are supposed to presume Michael Brown is innocent even if he was once arrested for felony assault. Or aren't we? I forget the rules on how all this presumption of innocence stuff applies to scary black men.

 

[Toni]

No, they only confirmed he didn't have any "serious felonies". And of course there is a possibility of felony crimes being downgraded to misdemeanors, especially if there was a plea bargain. I.e. a robbery could be downgraded to a theft.

That's true. Even something as serious as assaulting a police officer can be downgraded to a misdemeanor offense in a plea bargain. However, even someone who has pled guilty to assaulting a police officer is presumed innocent if/when charged with another assault. So we are supposed to presume Michael Brown is innocent even if he was once arrested for felony assault. Or aren't we? I forget the rules on how all this presumption of innocence stuff applies to scary black men.

Just wanted to say that so far, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Brown was guilty of any capital offense. Not even Derec or Loren.

Except for the being black part.

 

[Derec]

That's true. Even something as serious as assaulting a police officer can be downgraded to a misdemeanor offense in a plea bargain. However, even someone who has pled guilty to assaulting a police officer is presumed innocent if/when charged with another assault. So we are supposed to presume Michael Brown is innocent even if he was once arrested for felony assault. Or aren't we? I forget the rules on how all this presumption of innocence stuff applies to scary black men.

You are confusing categories. If Brown survived and was arrested he'd of course enjoy presumption of innocence for any crime he is charged with. Since he is dead, he doesn't enjoy presumption of innocence since he will, being dead, not face trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Just wanted to say that so far, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Brown was guilty of any capital offense. Not even Derec or Loren.

As even you admitted, nobody is claiming he was. A rather blatant strawman.

Except for the being black part.

And another.