New York Times publishes Officer Darren Wilson’s account of the Michael Brown shooting

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

At some point, Brown was withdrawing and no longer attacking Wilson. The ''self-defense'' justification ended at that point. If Wilson then followed Brown and shot him four more times in a fit of rage, then he committed a homicide --- either Murder 2 [premeditation was nullified by rage] or Voluntary Manslaughter [rage was reasonably provoked by Brown's assault]. Brown was not near the police car when Wilson killed him. This case presents a classic bar examination question.

Here is my reply on another thread.

Self defense isn't the issue fool. A police officer in MO can shoot a fleeing or resisting felon. The statute has been posted SEVERAL times.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Seriously? Stop being deliberately obtuse. You could walk right by that today and not recognize him, let alone months after.

I understand there is a lot of dumbing down in America today, but enough is enough!!!

It's not my fault that you're failing to convince me. If you want to call it being "deliberately obtuse" you're welcome to that opinion. But I think it's a pretty clear photo. The point is not that he's controlling how many photos of him are out there (and how current), the point is that he's in hiding.

Gee, I wonder why the fuck he would be in hiding...............

 

[CaféAuLait]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608030171008272837&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

Thank you. Do you now understand why there are no clear shots of Wilson? Would you want a bunch of racist vigilantes looking for you?

That's a fairly clear shot.

There's also a video of him pacing after the incident. After he allegedly almost lost consciousness. Now THAT'S blurry.

Just wondering if you saw the witness Dorian Johnson's version of what happened? Dorian, Brown's 'best friend" said the cop sat in the patrol car SHOCKED for 2-3 minutes- after the first shot! Start video at 8min in for relevant info.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

When you watch the video inside the convienent store, and see Brown's threatening attitude, it's easy to believe he assaulted the officer.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wouldn't ANY rationale person conclude that if WIlson was intent on murdering a black kid, and getting away with it, he would have murdered the black friend as well?

 

[Wake]

No way was that assault. Mr. Brown was passionately patting the store clerk in a good-spirited manner for giving him those free cigars. It was like a high-five, but on the chest. See? He's just a gentle giant.

 

[heirtothewind]

At some point, Brown was withdrawing and no longer attacking Wilson. The ''self-defense'' justification ended at that point. If Wilson then followed Brown and shot him four more times in a fit of rage, then he committed a homicide --- either Murder 2 [premeditation was nullified by rage] or Voluntary Manslaughter [rage was reasonably provoked by Brown's assault]. Brown was not near the police car when Wilson killed him. This case presents a classic bar examination question.

Here is my reply on another thread.

Self defense isn't the issue fool. A police officer in MO can shoot a fleeing or resisting felon. The statute has been posted SEVERAL times.

Wilson did not know that Brown stole a box of cigars. Moreover, Brown was shot from the front, thus rebutting the fleeing felon theory. Finally, shooting him six times seems excessive to stop a fleeing felon.

BTW, name-calling [''fool''] is a poor substitute for well-articulated thought. Activate your brain before setting your mouth in motion.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

In our system of law, the police don't get to kill a man and say well he desrved it even though I had no reason to suspect that at the time.

If you touch a cop's gun that is a felony.
If you punch or physically attack a cop that is battery on a LEO...another felony.

Brown committed at least 2 felonies...
Look at #3 below from the missouri statutes..

It was a good, legal shoot.



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.

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.


While you are presuming Brown committed 2 felonies, the evidence and witness testimony hardly supports that conclusively.
But let's say he did. Wilson will need to prove he reasonably believed that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest.
From what I've read, heard and watched it will take a very liberal interpretation of reasonably believed to support that deadly force was immediately necessary. He was roughly 20 feet away by most accounts, unarmed, had his arms up to some extent, and he was already shot - most probably several times before the fatal shot. It's also possible, if not likely the fatal shot came when he was already down considering the 2 head shots. One struck the crown of his head the other, the other above the eye exiting the bottom of his jaw. ( He was 6, 4").

CHAPTER 563

Please learn the law before you go to quoting it.

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.

If Wilson reasonably believed that Brown committed a felony he was justified in using deadly force, he does NOT have to prove to you that Brown committed a felony. He only has to prove that he reasonably believed that Wilson committed a felony. A subtle, yet distinct difference.

I don't claim to be a lawyer but perhaps you need to learn how to read.

First, I only addressed the felony aspect in respect to Rotagilla's comment stating that it was such a given that Brown had committed a felony.

Then for the purpose of illustrating my main point I said "But let's say he did" commit a felony. At that point there is no need for me to address the "reasonably believed" aspect regarding the felony because I concede that it occurred "in fact." (hypothetically). I said absolutely nothing about Wilson having to prove Brown committed a felony. I conceded one occurred for the purpose of my example.

On to my main point:

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

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.

AND

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the not so subtle distinction between deadly force and physical force.

#2 Physical force/Lawful Arrest - Sure, OK no problem.
AND
#3 (1) Show me where deadly force is authorized elsewhere that applies?

OR

#3 (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

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

At some point, Brown was withdrawing and no longer attacking Wilson. The ''self-defense'' justification ended at that point. If Wilson then followed Brown and shot him four more times in a fit of rage, then he committed a homicide --- either Murder 2 [premeditation was nullified by rage] or Voluntary Manslaughter [rage was reasonably provoked by Brown's assault]. Brown was not near the police car when Wilson killed him. This case presents a classic bar examination question.

Here is my reply on another thread.

Self defense isn't the issue fool. A police officer in MO can shoot a fleeing or resisting felon. The statute has been posted SEVERAL times.

Wilson did not know that Brown stole a box of cigars. Moreover, Brown was shot from the front, thus rebutting the fleeing felon theory. Finally, shooting him six times seems excessive to stop a fleeing felon.

BTW, name-calling [''fool''] is a poor substitute for well-articulated thought. Activate your brain before setting your mouth in motion.

Stealing a box of cigars is NOT a felony, so even if Wilson had known about it , he couldn't have legally used deadly force to prevent him from getting away.

That is not the felony that was being referred to. Assaulting a police officer who is performing his lawful duty however IS a felony, and after that Wilson was authorized to use deadly force if necessary to prevent Brown from escaping.

As for shooting him six times. It appears he was CHARGING the cop, and it that case they are trained to shoot until the suspect is down. And there are LOTS of cases where people have been shot multiple times and still managed to get hands on the shooter.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

At some point, Brown was withdrawing and no longer attacking Wilson. The ''self-defense'' justification ended at that point. If Wilson then followed Brown and shot him four more times in a fit of rage, then he committed a homicide --- either Murder 2 [premeditation was nullified by rage] or Voluntary Manslaughter [rage was reasonably provoked by Brown's assault]. Brown was not near the police car when Wilson killed him. This case presents a classic bar examination question.

Here is my reply on another thread.

Self defense isn't the issue fool. A police officer in MO can shoot a fleeing or resisting felon. The statute has been posted SEVERAL times.

Wilson did not know that Brown stole a box of cigars. Moreover, Brown was shot from the front, thus rebutting the fleeing felon theory. Finally, shooting him six times seems excessive to stop a fleeing felon.

BTW, name-calling [''fool''] is a poor substitute for well-articulated thought. Activate your brain before setting your mouth in motion.

The autopsy report shows the arm supinated (palm facing forward in the diagram) so the wounds appear to have come from the front. When the arm is in a natural position (standing, walking or running) one of the arm wounds could have been from a shot from behind. This was confirmed by Dr Baden's assistant.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Another interesting thing which I don't recall hearing from any witness or the police Chief's brief account:

"It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case-officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html

 

[heirtothewind]

At some point, Brown was withdrawing and no longer attacking Wilson. The ''self-defense'' justification ended at that point. If Wilson then followed Brown and shot him four more times in a fit of rage, then he committed a homicide --- either Murder 2 [premeditation was nullified by rage] or Voluntary Manslaughter [rage was reasonably provoked by Brown's assault]. Brown was not near the police car when Wilson killed him. This case presents a classic bar examination question.

Here is my reply on another thread.

Self defense isn't the issue fool. A police officer in MO can shoot a fleeing or resisting felon. The statute has been posted SEVERAL times.

Wilson did not know that Brown stole a box of cigars. Moreover, Brown was shot from the front, thus rebutting the fleeing felon theory. Finally, shooting him six times seems excessive to stop a fleeing felon.

BTW, name-calling [''fool''] is a poor substitute for well-articulated thought. Activate your brain before setting your mouth in motion.

Stealing a box of cigars is NOT a felony, so even if Wilson had known about it , he couldn't have legally used deadly force to prevent him from getting away.

That is not the felony that was being referred to. Assaulting a police officer who is performing his lawful duty however IS a felony, and after that Wilson was authorized to use deadly force if necessary to prevent Brown from escaping.

As for shooting him six times. It appears he was CHARGING the cop, and it that case they are trained to shoot until the suspect is down. And there are LOTS of cases where people have been shot multiple times and still managed to get hands on the shooter.

The facts of this case are very complex and, at this point, are being unfolded only to the grand jury. The case, however, will end up in a criminal law course for study and doubtlessly on a bar examination to test the applicant's ability to distinguish among homicides and the defenses thereto. And each answer, even if different conclusions are reached, will be correct if it is well-reasoned and correctly states the applicable legal principles..

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Witnesses' immediate reactions to the shooting (not an interview)

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608030171008272837&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

Thank you. Do you now understand why there are no clear shots of Wilson? Would you want a bunch of racist vigilantes looking for you?

That's a fairly clear shot.

There's also a video of him pacing after the incident. After he allegedly almost lost consciousness. Now THAT'S blurry.

Just wondering if you saw the witness Dorian Johnson's version of what happened? Dorian, Brown's 'best friend" said the cop sat in the patrol car SHOCKED for 2-3 minutes- after the first shot! Start video at 8min in for relevant info.

I caught that too. I thought he misspoke, but the interviewer should have asked for a clarification.

 

[CaféAuLait]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608030171008272837&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

Thank you. Do you now understand why there are no clear shots of Wilson? Would you want a bunch of racist vigilantes looking for you?

That's a fairly clear shot.

There's also a video of him pacing after the incident. After he allegedly almost lost consciousness. Now THAT'S blurry.

Just wondering if you saw the witness Dorian Johnson's version of what happened? Dorian, Brown's 'best friend" said the cop sat in the patrol car SHOCKED for 2-3 minutes- after the first shot! Start video at 8min in for relevant info.

I caught that too. I thought he misspoke, but the interviewer should have asked for a clarification.

He says it at least twice in the interview.

IMO he contradicts himself in that interview. Much of what he says does not make sense.

 

[House]

Somebody should spend more time out of mommy's basement and in society if they think the police don't have discretion on enforcement.

I see discretion exercised on a regular basis as a commercial driver.

 

[Grandma]

Why was there no backup? Around here, if there's any sort of problem two more cars show up in no time.

I keep asking myself, what if it had been a white 18-year-old? Not just any white 18-year-old, but trashy and with a juvie record, one known to be a troublemaker?

It's extremely unlikely that a white kid would have been fatally shot.

There's a presumption that dark skin automatically proves criminal intent even with seriously injuries.

Wake - if I ever need home care I won't seek your services. Being black is my favorite time of day. You're therefore not reliable.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Why was there no backup? Around here, if there's any sort of problem two more cars show up in no time.

I keep asking myself, what if it had been a white 18-year-old? Not just any white 18-year-old, but trashy and with a juvie record, one known to be a troublemaker?

It's extremely unlikely that a white kid would have been fatally shot.

There's a presumption that dark skin automatically proves criminal intent even with seriously injuries.

Wake - if I ever need home care I won't seek your services. Being black is my favorite time of day. You're therefore not reliable.

Here you go Grandma. This young white teen was shot by a black or what is called a non-white officer, just about the same time Brown was. Difference is, Dillon was white and unarmed, the officer who shot and killed him was non-white.



Never touched the cop the shooting was legally justified. He did not have a weapon either.

Body cam helps justify fatal South Salt Lake police shooting KSL.com

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So what you are saying is blacks wouldn't fight with cops in the first place if they didn't try to make them obey the law?

Number one, I didn't say anything about the race of either of them.

Number two, this undoubtedly would have been averted if Brown had simply moved quickly out of the road.

Number three, it is undoubtedly equally true that this would have been averted if Wilson hadn't stopped to tell these guys to get out of the road.

You know I really hate to say this....but seriously,STFU!!! You expect Officer Wilson to not do his job in deference to some street thug because he's black.
What you are endorsing is chaos and lawlessness.
Do you happen to be a anarchist?

 

[Grandma]

Why was there no backup? Around here, if there's any sort of problem two more cars show up in no time.

I keep asking myself, what if it had been a white 18-year-old? Not just any white 18-year-old, but trashy and with a juvie record, one known to be a troublemaker?

It's extremely unlikely that a white kid would have been fatally shot.

There's a presumption that dark skin automatically proves criminal intent even with seriously injuries.

Wake - if I ever need home care I won't seek your services. Being black is my favorite time of day. You're therefore not reliable.

Here you go Grandma. This young white teen was shot by a black or what is called a non-white officer, just about the same time Brown was. Difference is, Dillon was white and unarmed, the officer who shot and killed him was non-white.



Never touched the cop the shooting was legally justified. He did not have a weapon either.

Body cam helps justify fatal South Salt Lake police shooting KSL.com

Thanks.

I was actually referring to a white-on-white shooting though.

It is a fact that criminality is associated with skin color far more than with criminal activity, unfortunately.

Hopefully body cams for all will level the playing field racially, and also help get rid of overzealous, incompetent, or otherwise unqualified police officers.