Michael Brown had robbed a Quick Trip just before the fatal shooting

[Sallow]

If true it'll be irrelevant to the officer's use of lethal force unless the officer knew about it and was detaining he and his aquaintance for questioning about it. Report I heard, the officer detained them both for j-walking. In the process of that, Mr. Brown physically assaulted the officer pushing on his car door whereupon a physical struggle ensued resulting in the officer using lethal force as was his right legally as per Missouri statute 563.046

Did you actually read it?

Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

A fleeing unarmed suspect doesn't meet this criteria.

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

The crime they suspected him of..didn't even meet that criteria.

He was unarmed.

 

[Asclepias]

God, you'd think they would have learned after the Trayvon fiasco. Another really stupid shit thug ffs!

Learned what?

To pick their fights more carefully. Race pimps, Marin and this latest dumb shit are among the lowest brow of humanity. Include yourself if you wish, as a kindred spirit and intellect.

This isnt a fight. This is a protest saying you dont have a right to shoot unarmed people.

 

[mal]

Alleged is the proper term....but you Gramps like to convict at home...why are you not working??

peace...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Certainly changes the racial profiling and innocent kid narrative. This was predictable.

Well no. It doesn't.

No one questioned to kid to determine whether he was even there. And if he was? What exactly transpired.

The kid is dead.

And the police are already engaged in "trying" him.

Supposedly the "kid" has a rap sheet with the police and a long history of thuggery. It appears he's "tried" himself

So that would make it okay to gun him down in the street?

WTF is wrong with you people?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well no. It doesn't.

No one questioned to kid to determine whether he was even there. And if he was? What exactly transpired.

The kid is dead.

And the police are already engaged in "trying" him.

Supposedly the "kid" has a rap sheet with the police and a long history of thuggery. It appears he's "tried" himself

It appears you have a rap sheet too.

Do you think that police have a right to put a bullet in you?

Or do you appreciate the day in court?

I never gave a cop a reason to pull a gun on me. I never attacked a cop & I never commited strong armed robbery.

It all boils down to the circumstances & facts. Sadly the left wants to ignore those because they don't fit the narrative of an innocent boy being unjustly shot.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's being reported that the shooting officer was on a different call when he was rerouted to the QT robbery. We all know what happened after that.

Correction: we all think we know what happened after that.

Still wouldn't matter. If the officer detained the two to question them about the robbery, but the reason he stopped them was for the j-walking that alone justifies the officer stopping them. The legal 'justification' for everythign that followed.

The use of lethal force depends on the officer's original purpose being lawful, as with stopping them for j-walking. If they'd been walking down the sidewalk, everything that followed included lethal force application could be construed as unlawful.

The 'jay-walking' BS story is from Johnson who was involved with 'Big Mike'.
Are you so fucking brain-dead you are automatically going to believe Johnson's version of why he and 'Big Mike' were stopped? Don't bother answering.
If there is a trial it will be great to watch that moron Crump try to explain to the jury how 'Big Mike', the simian who strong armed a little store clerk half his size then got into it with a cop who stopped him and Johnson based on the description from the store clerk is somehow innocent.
Anyway. No charges will be brought against the cop and the simians can go back to their tree tops and wait for another chance to loot and destroy local business on the pretext of innocently peacefully demonstrating.

I'm betting there will be a trial ala George Zimmerman for the justified shooting of whatzhisname.

I would imagine the same outcome followed by a riot replete with Molotov cocktails and looted stores.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Did you actually read it?



A fleeing unarmed suspect doesn't meet this criteria.

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

The crime they suspected him of..didn't even meet that criteria.

He was unarmed.

Attacking an ARMED POLICE OFFICER is most certainly proof that this kid was a danger.

If you think otherwise you are nuts

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Did you actually read it?



A fleeing unarmed suspect doesn't meet this criteria.

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

The crime they suspected him of..didn't even meet that criteria.

He was unarmed.

Did the cop know that? It's become painfully obvious the kid committed a crime,and when confronted by the police he chose to fight. Just like little TreyTrey chose to fight.
At what point do these dumbfucks get it? Start shit and there is a possibility you might die over it.
You can say all you want about the crime not being a death penalty type crime,but had they not committed that crime they wouldnt have set the wheels in motion that lead to their death.

 

[Ernie S.]

Dorian Johnson even admitted they had cigars. I hope to god that they didnt rob that store.

Why? Would it fuck up your political narrative?

What do you mean why dumb ass? Why would I want them to be quilty of robbing a store? So you cave apes would feel vindicated for shooting him down in cold blood?

So yes. It would fuck up your narrative. Thank you for the conformation.

 

[Asclepias]

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

The crime they suspected him of..didn't even meet that criteria.

He was unarmed.

Attacking an ARMED POLICE OFFICER is most certainly proof that this kid was a danger.

If you think otherwise you are nuts

Thats exactly why I want to see the video. If he robbed the store the officer is going to get off. The only people that saw the entire exchange is the alleged accomplice Dorian Johnson and the cop. Who do you think a jury is going to believe?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The crime they suspected him of..didn't even meet that criteria.

He was unarmed.

Attacking an ARMED POLICE OFFICER is most certainly proof that this kid was a danger.

If you think otherwise you are nuts

Thats exactly why I want to see the video. If he robbed the store the officer is going to get off. The only people that saw the entire exchange is the alleged accomplice Dorian Johnson and the cop. Who do you think a jury is going to believe?

It sure as hell wont be the guy who just robbed the Quicky Mart..

 

[Discombobulated]

Okay..

Thus far here's the facts.

A cop shot a kid.

And the kid was unarmed.

That's what we know now.


The police force has been real short on "facts" on the policeman or the way this kid died.

But they are releasing all sorts of things on the kid to make him look bad.

You dig?

Why are there bad things to release?

And that's not the issue.

You brought it up.

 

[dilloduck]

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

The crime they suspected him of..didn't even meet that criteria.

He was unarmed.

Attacking an ARMED POLICE OFFICER is most certainly proof that this kid was a danger.

If you think otherwise you are nuts

Seriously-----is there anyone anywhere who thinks it's a safe idea to attacked an armed person ?? ?

 

[Asclepias]

Why? Would it fuck up your political narrative?

What do you mean why dumb ass? Why would I want them to be quilty of robbing a store? So you cave apes would feel vindicated for shooting him down in cold blood?

So yes. It would fuck up your narrative. Thank you for the conformation.

My narrative was that the cop shot him in cold blood retard. That cant be fucked up.

 

[Sallow]

Supposedly the "kid" has a rap sheet with the police and a long history of thuggery. It appears he's "tried" himself

It appears you have a rap sheet too.

Do you think that police have a right to put a bullet in you?

Or do you appreciate the day in court?

I never gave a cop a reason to pull a gun on me. I never attacked a cop & I never commited strong armed robbery.

It all boils down to the circumstances & facts. Sadly the left wants to ignore those because they don't fit the narrative of an innocent boy being unjustly shot.

You committed a crime.

That's reason enough.

When you lower the threshold for this sort of action it becomes a real slippery slope.

Don't know why you don't get that.

 

[Asclepias]

Attacking an ARMED POLICE OFFICER is most certainly proof that this kid was a danger.

If you think otherwise you are nuts

Thats exactly why I want to see the video. If he robbed the store the officer is going to get off. The only people that saw the entire exchange is the alleged accomplice Dorian Johnson and the cop. Who do you think a jury is going to believe?

It sure as hell wont be the guy who just robbed the Quicky Mart..

My point exactly. The officer can tell pretty much any story he wants to as long as it fits forensics.

 

[ducks102]

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

The crime they suspected him of..didn't even meet that criteria.

He was unarmed.

Attacking an ARMED POLICE OFFICER is most certainly proof that this kid was a danger.

If you think otherwise you are nuts

He was shot 35 feet away... how is that danger?

 

[Sallow]

Why are there bad things to release?

And that's not the issue.

You brought it up.

In the context that the police are introducing material that isn't relevant to the events that transpired.

And it's obvious why they are doing it.

 

[rightwinger]

The video gives police a justification for stopping Brown and Johnson walking down the street

How the officer acted once he stopped them and justification for shooting an alleged shoplifter remains to be seen

 

[Zander]

Duke LaCrosse.......rush to judgement- accusations of racism
Trayvon Martin.......rush to judgement- accusations of racism
Michael Brown........rush to judgement- accusations of racism

Anyone see a pattern here?