Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Derec]

I don't think that Wilson thought that far ahead.

That's the whole point. After being attacked by Brown the whole thing unfolded in a matter of seconds. Easy to unload your magazine when the adrenaline is pumping and you have fight/flight (in his case fight) rather than rational assessment of the situation.

 

[Rhea]

I don't think that Wilson thought that far ahead.

That's the whole point. After being attacked by Brown the whole thing unfolded in a matter of seconds. Easy to unload your magazine when the adrenaline is pumping and you have fight/flight (in his case fight) rather than rational assessment of the situation.

This sounds like a great argument for not having armed cops because it is too easy to "unload your magazine" rather than "rational assessment of the situation." Is that your position, derec? Or are you okay with unloading magazines into people before employing rational assessment? I never have been...

 

[Derec]

Oh I know you wouldn't be. That statement was sarcasm.

I also explained why.

again, yeah, right.

Why do you think a robbery arrest would be?

He wasn't stopped for robbing a store. He was stopped for walking in the street.

A young man stopped for jaywalking is even less newsworthy. But of course he had just committed robbery and the police officer knew about it even if he initially stopped Brown for walking in the middle of the street. So he'd have been arrested for robbery if he hadn't been shot.

are you suggesting that national news has never covered survivors of police actions?

I wouldn't call an arrested perp "survivor of a police action". Especially since "police action" doesn't mean what you think it means. </Inigo Montoya>

the man has be killed, just what is there for him to apologize?

Denying that his criminal past (including his criminal actions committed minutes before the shooting) have any relevance. Insisting that he is a "gentle giant" who would never have attacked the police. Apologetics like that.

Of which Wilson was unaware and the store had not reported.

He was aware of the robbery as it was called in. And the fact that it was a customer that initially called 911 doesn't change the fact that the robbery was reported to the police. It also doesn't change the fact that Brown was a thug.

And until convicted or confessed, Brown was not a perpetrator but a suspect.

Please. He is dead so he will never do either of the two. But we know for a fact that it was him who did it.

Well if you are so sure of these felonies, why the obsession with the juvie record? If what you say is correct, you don't need his juvie record.

We don't need the juvie record but it would help paint a more complete picture. Why are you so afraid of it? Scared it will reveal a history of criminal behavior?

 

[Derec]

This sounds like a great argument for not having armed cops because it is too easy to "unload your magazine" rather than "rational assessment of the situation." Is that your position, derec? Or are you okay with unloading magazines into people before employing rational assessment? I never have been...

If you attack a cop you make a conscious decision that you may die even if you try to surrender once you fail to get the officer's weapon if he doesn't realize you are trying to surrender in time. Play stupid games (attack a police officer), win stupid prizes (bullet through the top of your head).
Police officers are still human beings, not robots.
As far as them being armed, it is necessary given the high rate of weapons possession in the US. Most police in the UK do not carry guns but then again, post perps don't either.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I also explained why.

again, yeah, right.

Why do you think a robbery arrest would be?

He wasn't stopped for robbing a store. He was stopped for walking in the street.

A young man stopped for jaywalking is even less newsworthy. But of course he had just committed robbery and the police officer knew about it even if he initially stopped Brown for walking in the middle of the street. So he'd have been arrested for robbery if he hadn't been shot.

are you suggesting that national news has never covered survivors of police actions?

I wouldn't call an arrested perp "survivor of a police action". Especially since "police action" doesn't mean what you think it means. </Inigo Montoya>

the man has be killed, just what is there for him to apologize?

Denying that his criminal past (including his criminal actions committed minutes before the shooting) have any relevance. Insisting that he is a "gentle giant" who would never have attacked the police. Apologetics like that.

Of which Wilson was unaware and the store had not reported.

He was aware of the robbery as it was called in. And the fact that it was a customer that initially called 911 doesn't change the fact that the robbery was reported to the police. It also doesn't change the fact that Brown was a thug.

And until convicted or confessed, Brown was not a perpetrator but a suspect.

Please. He is dead so he will never do either of the two. But we know for a fact that it was him who did it.

Well if you are so sure of these felonies, why the obsession with the juvie record? If what you say is correct, you don't need his juvie record.

We don't need the juvie record but it would help paint a more complete picture. Why are you so afraid of it? Scared it will reveal a history of criminal behavior?

In case you haven't figured this out yet, I am not the one frightened here. I don't have vested interest in proving a dead man deserved to die.

I do have a vested interest in seeing to it that justice is done. A young man is dead, killed be another man the citizenry entrusted to protect and serve everyone, including the dead younng man. The burden here isn't on the corpse.

But I doubt you will ever admit that or maybe even understand it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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?

Please tell my when and why shots fired at an unarmed man surrendering is justified? Please.

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.

Please tell me what Wilson knew about Brown that would justify shooting an unarmed man who was surrendering?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

Or he could have used a wi-fi network without permission. Derec, you do know that the average American commits three felonies a day?

 

[Derec]

Or he could have used a wi-fi network without permission.

Any evidence to suggests it was that rather than more theft/robbery?

Derec, you do know that the average American commits three felonies a day?

Did you know 86.7% of all statistics are invented on the spot.

 

[Derec]

Please tell my when and why shots fired at an unarmed man surrendering is justified? Please.

I already said that if he was surrendering that it could be manslaughter. However, by the time he was surrendering Brown would have already been under fire. It takes a finite amount of time for the brain to process information like "the subject is no longer a threat. I can hold fire.", especially when adrenaline is pumping due to him having been under attack by Brown. So I am willing to cut Wilson some slack.

Please tell me what Wilson knew about Brown that would justify shooting an unarmed man who was surrendering?

He knew that he had just attacked him. He probably connected him to the robbery by that time too.

 

[Rhea]

He knew that he had just attacked him.

I'm unclear on the evidence that causes you to claim, apparently unequivocally, that Brown attacked the officer. What information causes you to "know" this was part of the encounter again? Is there video of it? Lots of witnesses? People who relate a scenario that involves being attacked by someone and after they are 35 feet away (I assume _after_ the attack is over?) that's a good time to decide to _start_ the shooting?

He probably connected him to the robbery by that time too.

Was this while he was not "employing rational assessment"? Again, what causes you to think this?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I already said that if he was surrendering that it could be manslaughter. However, by the time he was surrendering Brown would have already been under fire. It takes a finite amount of time for the brain to process information like "the subject is no longer a threat. I can hold fire.", especially when adrenaline is pumping due to him having been under attack by Brown. So I am willing to cut Wilson some slack.

So you are saying that it is justified, and what about the witnesses and the recordings that record pauses in the firing?

Please tell me what Wilson knew about Brown that would justify shooting an unarmed man who was surrendering?

He knew that he had just attacked him. He probably connected him to the robbery by that time too.

So you are allowed to summarily execute shoot a surrendering unarmed suspect because he had struggled with you?

 

[Derec]

So you are saying that it is justified, and what about the witnesses and the recordings that record pauses in the firing?

I am saying that if what the witnesses say is correct that it would not be justified, but it wouldn't be murder either.

 

[Trausti]

So you are saying that it is justified, and what about the witnesses and the recordings that record pauses in the firing?

I am saying that if what the witnesses say is correct that it would not be justified, but it wouldn't be murder either.

Not murder. It'd be voluntary manslaughter, assuming Brown had assaulted the police officer moments before.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The "some guy" in question used what is very well known and observed on this board(to have included FRDB) a parody style of communication. Parody style which most of us can easily identify especially since he uses quote tags as in pretending to be or think as... It appears you have great difficulties recognizing the difference between a remark made in jesting/parody style and one intended to be taken seriously.

Yeah, he wants you to think it is a parody.

 

[Rhea]

I am saying that if what the witnesses say is correct that it would not be justified, but it wouldn't be murder either.

Not murder. It'd be voluntary manslaughter, assuming Brown had assaulted the police officer moments before.

Why are we assuming a reason to shoot? Shouldn't shooting to kill rest on something more, say, reliable than assumptions?

 

[ZiprHead]

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. 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".

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.

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.

Racist BS...

 

[ZiprHead]

This sounds like a great argument for not having armed cops because it is too easy to "unload your magazine" rather than "rational assessment of the situation." Is that your position, derec? Or are you okay with unloading magazines into people before employing rational assessment? I never have been...

If you attack a cop you make a conscious decision that you may die even if you try to surrender once you fail to get the officer's weapon if he doesn't realize you are trying to surrender in time. Play stupid games (attack a police officer), win stupid prizes (bullet through the top of your head).
Police officers are still human beings, not robots.
As far as them being armed, it is necessary given the high rate of weapons possession in the US. Most police in the UK do not carry guns but then again, post perps don't either.

You say Brown made a conscious decision but let Wilson off for killing him in the heat of the moment? Yes, cops are human but so are suspects. Your double standard underwear is showing. Pull up your pants and start acting like a big boy.

 

[Trausti]

Not murder. It'd be voluntary manslaughter, assuming Brown had assaulted the police officer moments before.

Why are we assuming a reason to shoot? Shouldn't shooting to kill rest on something more, say, reliable than assumptions?

Um, yes. That's the point of voluntary manslaughter. If Brown had provoked the officer by assaulting him, then that lays the foundation for voluntary manslaughter. It's the legal standard. Get off the high horse.

 

[Bronzeage]

Not murder. It'd be voluntary manslaughter, assuming Brown had assaulted the police officer moments before.

Why are we assuming a reason to shoot? Shouldn't shooting to kill rest on something more, say, reliable than assumptions?

All decisions are based on assumptions. There is no dilemma, however obvious, in which all the critical information is known. Some trusted facts, may actually be false.

There is no other kind of shooting, except "shoot to kill." The human body does not have any extraneous parts. A bullet in the leg can sever the femoral artery, which will lead to death in a few minutes or less. Anyone who points a gun at another person and pulls the trigger should assume the target is going to die. That is a reliable assumption.

In the case of Ferguson, the problem is not assumptions, but the training, or lack of it, which let unreliable assumptions shape split second decisions. The police officer in question is to blame for Brown's death. We can go on and on about how Brown threatened or provoked the officer, but a deadly shooting was the last thing to occur in a chain of events which the officer put into play. The real blame goes up from there. Incompetent police department administration and training are the real culprits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So? I never said all black witnesses lie.

I said that in any situation with a bunch of black witnesses you'll find some saying he did nothing wrong, no matter what the facts are.