Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Jarhyn]

It's so hard to say that it was a justified stop because it's very hard for MOST of the people here to say things that aren't true.

I think the question of whether or not the stop was justified is pretty much overshadowed by the question of whether or not the killing was justified. The problem that the cops have lost all legitimacy but the use of force is pretty starkly illustrated there. If almost the entire black community just responds with fuck you to cops, that's a problem with the cops. It's systemic and every single cop willing to participate in such a system has that blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.

Rather quite the opposite. If the stop was justified, then the response by brown was not. If brown's response was not justified, the officer was justified in attempting to detain or issue a ticket to brown. There was some manner of altercation, for which the justification rests on the justification of the stop. The fallout is the responsibility of whichever party acted unethically at the time of the stop. If the cop was bullying brown, it was first the cop's responsibility to back off. If brown was a dick to a cop who wasn't being an asshole, brown was responsible for pushing the situation to escalate.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I think the question of whether or not the stop was justified is pretty much overshadowed by the question of whether or not the killing was justified. The problem that the cops have lost all legitimacy but the use of force is pretty starkly illustrated there. If almost the entire black community just responds with fuck you to cops, that's a problem with the cops. It's systemic and every single cop willing to participate in such a system has that blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.

Rather quite the opposite. If the stop was justified, then the response by brown was not. If brown's response was not justified, the officer was justified in attempting to detain or issue a ticket to brown. There was some manner of altercation, for which the justification rests on the justification of the stop. The fallout is the responsibility of whichever party acted unethically at the time of the stop. If the cop was bullying brown, it was first the cop's responsibility to back off. If brown was a dick to a cop who wasn't being an asshole, brown was responsible for pushing the situation to escalate.

This might be an endlessly recursive discussion regarding the definition of 'justify'.

 

[Trausti]

I think the question of whether or not the stop was justified is pretty much overshadowed by the question of whether or not the killing was justified. The problem that the cops have lost all legitimacy but the use of force is pretty starkly illustrated there. If almost the entire black community just responds with fuck you to cops, that's a problem with the cops. It's systemic and every single cop willing to participate in such a system has that blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.

Rather quite the opposite. If the stop was justified, then the response by brown was not. If brown's response was not justified, the officer was justified in attempting to detain or issue a ticket to brown. There was some manner of altercation, for which the justification rests on the justification of the stop. The fallout is the responsibility of whichever party acted unethically at the time of the stop. If the cop was bullying brown, it was first the cop's responsibility to back off. If brown was a dick to a cop who wasn't being an asshole, brown was responsible for pushing the situation to escalate.

Well, Wilson was aware of the robbery, that Brown fit the suspect's description, and called in for backup before confronting Brown. So the stop justified.

 

[Rhea]

Well, Wilson was aware of the robbery, that Brown fit the suspect's description, and called in for backup before confronting Brown. So the stop justified.

I thought this was demonstrated to have only come up long after the incident. It was not in his initial report at all.

 

[George S]

Well, Wilson was aware of the robbery, that Brown fit the suspect's description, and called in for backup before confronting Brown. So the stop justified.

I thought this was demonstrated to have only come up long after the incident. It was not in his initial report at all.

No recording... due to technical (radio) difficulties. "It may have been jarred to the receive-only channel when I made the call."

 

[Trausti]

Well, Wilson was aware of the robbery, that Brown fit the suspect's description, and called in for backup before confronting Brown. So the stop justified.

I thought this was demonstrated to have only come up long after the incident. It was not in his initial report at all.

It's in the call log.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One scenario which fits the facts as I understand them is: Officer Friendly asks our strolling pedestrians to move to the sidewalk through the open window of the squad car. Officer Friendly drives on. Those pedestrians indicate they had no intention of doing so, expressing their intention in "street" language. Officer Friendly is now Officer Offended by their lack of compliance with his request and backs up the vehicle to be close to the pedestrians. One of said pedestrians continues to express his intention and Officer Offended attempts to open his car door. He is stopped from doing so by said pedestrian who became physical, reaching through the window. The rest you know.

Yup. While we can't really know the nature of the initial interaction it certainly looks like it was just a minor warning of some kind, nothing more--until he got back a hostile reply.

Another scenario which fits the facts as I understand them is: Officer Bigoted asks our strolling pedestrians to move to the sidewalk through the open window of the squad car. His primary motivation in doing this is because the pedestrians are black.

I don't think this is a likely scenario. Anybody but Officer Lazy would have at least delivered a warning. I think Officer Bigoted would have done more than a simple warning and driving off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's so hard to say that it was a justified stop because it's very hard for MOST of the people here to say things that aren't true.

I think the question of whether or not the stop was justified is pretty much overshadowed by the question of whether or not the killing was justified. The problem that the cops have lost all legitimacy but the use of force is pretty starkly illustrated there. If almost the entire black community just responds with fuck you to cops, that's a problem with the cops. It's systemic and every single cop willing to participate in such a system has that blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.

I disagree. The problem is that there are people like Al Sharpton that keep trying to whip up trouble. The things the cops get blamed for don't need to actually be incidents of racism.

Just look at the discussions that have come before on here--things like a black ex-cop getting thrown to the ground for carrying a gun, contrasted with whites getting friendly treatment. The person who posted that example missed the key factor: The cops found the gun. If the cops find a gun on you expect rough treatment! Always, always tell the cop about the gun before it's discovered.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the question of whether or not the stop was justified is pretty much overshadowed by the question of whether or not the killing was justified. The problem that the cops have lost all legitimacy but the use of force is pretty starkly illustrated there. If almost the entire black community just responds with fuck you to cops, that's a problem with the cops. It's systemic and every single cop willing to participate in such a system has that blood on their hands as far as I am concerned.

Rather quite the opposite. If the stop was justified, then the response by brown was not. If brown's response was not justified, the officer was justified in attempting to detain or issue a ticket to brown. There was some manner of altercation, for which the justification rests on the justification of the stop. The fallout is the responsibility of whichever party acted unethically at the time of the stop. If the cop was bullying brown, it was first the cop's responsibility to back off. If brown was a dick to a cop who wasn't being an asshole, brown was responsible for pushing the situation to escalate.

Nobody contests that they were walking down the middle of the street. That's jaywalking, the stop was justified.

 

[bilby]

... If the cops find a gun on you expect rough treatment!

Should you also expect rough treatment if you are exercising your right to freedom of speech; or if you request an attorney; or if you request that the police produce a warrant before searching your home; or if you do any of the other things that you have a constitutional right to do?

I don't think your second amendment is a good law, but it is the law, and I think there is something truly terrifying about anyone calmly suggesting that the police are entitled to engage in 'rough treatment' of citizens, solely on the basis that they are exercising one of their constitutionally protected rights.

If the police are not there specifically to defend citizens' constitutional and legal rights, then what the fuck are they for?

 

[George S]

... If the cops find a gun on you expect rough treatment!

Should you also expect rough treatment if you are exercising your right to freedom of speech; or if you request an attorney; or if you request that the police produce a warrant before searching your home; or if you do any of the other things that you have a constitutional right to do?

I don't think your second amendment is a good law, but it is the law, and I think there is something truly terrifying about anyone calmly suggesting that the police are entitled to engage in 'rough treatment' of citizens, solely on the basis that they are exercising one of their constitutionally protected rights.

If the police are not there specifically to defend citizens' constitutional and legal rights, then what the fuck are they for?

They are there, in their minds, to enforce order using law as a tool.

Many policemen believe that honest citizens will not invoke legal technicalities (constitutionally protected rights) unless they are guilty. A cop -- a 40-year veteran -- in my hometown said just that. He and his department then harassed -- used any tiny technical lawbreaking -- to target the "guilty" person.

To them it is a game. All people brought before a court are guilty. They may get off on a technicality, but they were guilty. It is a game in which to lawyers debate before a judge and that judge judges how well the lawyers dealt with technicalities in that debate. But they all were really guilty.

The only good guys are policemen. There are neutral civilians (sometimes these are victims of collateral damage) and bad guys. When dealing with bad guys police expect them to use technicalities for their benefit, so any means to get around those technicalities is fair. Hiring an informant to obtain information that police are constitutionally barred from obtaining is a fair way to avoid technicalities. Lying during interrogations is quite alright for police to do and judges have agreed. The means justify the ends.

 

[ksen]

I thought this was demonstrated to have only come up long after the incident. It was not in his initial report at all.

It's in the call log.

What call log?

 

[Rhea]

I thought this was demonstrated to have only come up long after the incident. It was not in his initial report at all.

It's in the call log.

can you link?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I thought this was demonstrated to have only come up long after the incident. It was not in his initial report at all.

No recording... due to technical (radio) difficulties. "It may have been jarred to the receive-only channel when I made the call."

Several websites has his last recording as, "I have 2 on Canfield, please send another call" The reference to not hearing anything was shots fired.

Here is one website with it

http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html

 

[ksen]

No recording... due to technical (radio) difficulties. "It may have been jarred to the receive-only channel when I made the call."

Several websites has his last recording as, "I have 2 on Canfield, please send another call" The reference to not hearing anything was shots fired.

Here is one website with it

http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html

From your link:

Wilson has told authorities that he called, “Shots fired, send all cars,” on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.

Ok.

But then this:

According to sources, Wilson has said that Brown turned and charged, and that Wilson then fired once, paused when Brown appeared to flinch and fired again, multiple times. He said he then radioed for an ambulance.

How did the ambulance call go out but not the shots fired call?

Also:

Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street.

So the initial stop was made before Wilson was aware of the burglary and the suspects being looked for.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Several websites has his last recording as, "I have 2 on Canfield, please send another call" The reference to not hearing anything was shots fired.

Here is one website with it

http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html

From your link:

Wilson has told authorities that he called, “Shots fired, send all cars,” on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.

Ok.

But then this:

According to sources, Wilson has said that Brown turned and charged, and that Wilson then fired once, paused when Brown appeared to flinch and fired again, multiple times. He said he then radioed for an ambulance.

How did the ambulance call go out but not the shots fired call?

Also:

Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street.

So the initial stop was made before Wilson was aware of the burglary and the suspects being looked for.

It's not apparent who called the ambulance from the log, and I think that's a minor unimportant detail.

And I said that Wilson say the two walking down the street and asked them to use the sidewalk. He then realized it was the suspects, baked up the car, which would be confirmed from the log that he said he saw the 2 suspects and needed help.

 

[ksen]

From your link:

Wilson has told authorities that he called, “Shots fired, send all cars,” on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.

Ok.

But then this:

According to sources, Wilson has said that Brown turned and charged, and that Wilson then fired once, paused when Brown appeared to flinch and fired again, multiple times. He said he then radioed for an ambulance.

How did the ambulance call go out but not the shots fired call?

Also:

Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street.

So the initial stop was made before Wilson was aware of the burglary and the suspects being looked for.

It's not apparent who called the ambulance from the log, and I think that's a minor unimportant detail.

And I said that Wilson say the two walking down the street and asked them to use the sidewalk. He then realized it was the suspects, baked up the car, which would be confirmed from the log that he said he saw the 2 suspects and needed help.

Trausti pulled out the car log as evidence that Wilson knew about the robbery which justified the initial stop when your story indicates that the logs show Wilson didn't know about it at the time of the initial encounter. So I guess since Trausti's timeline has been shown to be in error maybe he'll change his mind about the justification of the initial stop?

 

[coloradoatheist]

From your link:

Wilson has told authorities that he called, “Shots fired, send all cars,” on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.

Ok.

But then this:

According to sources, Wilson has said that Brown turned and charged, and that Wilson then fired once, paused when Brown appeared to flinch and fired again, multiple times. He said he then radioed for an ambulance.

How did the ambulance call go out but not the shots fired call?

Also:

Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street.

So the initial stop was made before Wilson was aware of the burglary and the suspects being looked for.

It's not apparent who called the ambulance from the log, and I think that's a minor unimportant detail.

And I said that Wilson say the two walking down the street and asked them to use the sidewalk. He then realized it was the suspects, baked up the car, which would be confirmed from the log that he said he saw the 2 suspects and needed help.

Trausti pulled out the car log as evidence that Wilson knew about the robbery which justified the initial stop when your story indicates that the logs show Wilson didn't know about it at the time of the initial encounter. So I guess since Trausti's timeline has been shown to be in error maybe he'll change his mind about the justification of the initial stop?

Yes and no. It doesn't matter if Wilson matched the description of the suspect in another crime to the person walking down the street. He then is in a position to try and talk to that person, so it would be a justified stop. We would have two stops here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... If the cops find a gun on you expect rough treatment!

Should you also expect rough treatment if you are exercising your right to freedom of speech; or if you request an attorney; or if you request that the police produce a warrant before searching your home; or if you do any of the other things that you have a constitutional right to do?

I don't think your second amendment is a good law, but it is the law, and I think there is something truly terrifying about anyone calmly suggesting that the police are entitled to engage in 'rough treatment' of citizens, solely on the basis that they are exercising one of their constitutionally protected rights.

If the police are not there specifically to defend citizens' constitutional and legal rights, then what the fuck are they for?

You're missing the point--the keyword is "find". It's not the gun that's the issue, it's the cops discovering it rather than being told about it.

 

[bilby]

Should you also expect rough treatment if you are exercising your right to freedom of speech; or if you request an attorney; or if you request that the police produce a warrant before searching your home; or if you do any of the other things that you have a constitutional right to do?

I don't think your second amendment is a good law, but it is the law, and I think there is something truly terrifying about anyone calmly suggesting that the police are entitled to engage in 'rough treatment' of citizens, solely on the basis that they are exercising one of their constitutionally protected rights.

If the police are not there specifically to defend citizens' constitutional and legal rights, then what the fuck are they for?

You're missing the point--the keyword is "find". It's not the gun that's the issue, it's the cops discovering it rather than being told about it.

Why are you required to tell the cops anything about your lawful behaviour? Did they waive the right to remain silent all of a sudden? "You have the right to remain silent, but if you exercise that right you should expect rough treatment" is a new one on me.

You're missing the point. If you have the right to remain silent, and the right to bear arms, then it is unreasonable for those charged with upholding the law to violently assault you for no other reason than your exercise of those rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're missing the point--the keyword is "find". It's not the gun that's the issue, it's the cops discovering it rather than being told about it.

Why are you required to tell the cops anything about your lawful behaviour? Did they waive the right to remain silent all of a sudden? "You have the right to remain silent, but if you exercise that right you should expect rough treatment" is a new one on me.

You're missing the point. If you have the right to remain silent, and the right to bear arms, then it is unreasonable for those charged with upholding the law to violently assault you for no other reason than your exercise of those rights.

In many states it's the law--you must notify the officer. Even if it's not when the cops find a gun the first thought is "bad guy". This is a country where in most states it's legal for appropriately-licensed people to carry concealed firearms--what's so strange about there being laws to minimize the problems??