Ferguson officer-involved shooting is as-described

[Ravi]

I've read that the officer continued firing at the young man as he was running away? Can anyone verify this?

And that he was shot with his hands in the air?

That is what the witnesses say. The kid ran under fire, stopped and turned around and put his hands in the air and the cop killed him.

 

[rightwinger]

The problem in Ferguson is that we have only been hearing one side of the story. We hear details from everyone except the police. The only response from police was "Brown tried to take the officers gun" a typical response from police in shooting an unarmed man

The community responded violently because it seemed to be another case of police harrassing blacks for "walking while black" and then covering up for another shooting of a young black man

The cops could have done a better job at damage control by immediately releasing a credible scenario of why Brown was shot

 

[Sallow]

Watching coverage yesterday, on CNN they had alledged eye-witnesses to events from the first shots onward. Sitting beside what I assumed was her lawyer, a young woman described what she saw. I noticed that while her interpretation of what she saw is open to cross-examination (are you sure you saw what you saw?) what isn't in dispute is the subject who got shot was inside the officer's vehicle struggling with the officer. That would seem to corroborate the officer's description of being assaulted and the subject going for his weapon.

The eye-witnesses' description confirms the officer and subject had some sort of physical altercation at the vehicle. What she goes on to describe is the actual shooting. But whether what she was seeing was a racist officer murdering a subject or responding to the subject's assault and grab for his weapon she couldn't know. Understandably the actual shooting will be most prominent in her recollection.

I'm believing the officer's account more and more with her testimony.

Doesn't matter.

Even if the officer's story is correct?

He still committed murder.

You cannot shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect.

Even then?

When the suspect stops and raises his hands?

You can't shoot.

Simple as that.

 

[Sallow]

I've read that the officer continued firing at the young man as he was running away? Can anyone verify this?

And that he was shot with his hands in the air?

I've seen 2 unrelated witnesses verify the exact same sequence of events.

And it seems even the police version of the story is similar but still vague.

 

[rightwinger]

The officers name will be released this morning

We know Brown was a kid with no record who was heading to college in a week
We will find out if the cop had a previous reputation for mishandling racial situations

 

[JFK_USA]

Watching coverage yesterday, on CNN they had alledged eye-witnesses to events from the first shots onward. Sitting beside what I assumed was her lawyer, a young woman described what she saw. I noticed that while her interpretation of what she saw is open to cross-examination (are you sure you saw what you saw?) what isn't in dispute is the subject who got shot was inside the officer's vehicle struggling with the officer. That would seem to corroborate the officer's description of being assaulted and the subject going for his weapon.

The eye-witnesses' description confirms the officer and subject had some sort of physical altercation at the vehicle. What she goes on to describe is the actual shooting. But whether what she was seeing was a racist officer murdering a subject or responding to the subject's assault and grab for his weapon she couldn't know. Understandably the actual shooting will be most prominent in her recollection.

I'm believing the officer's account more and more with her testimony.

Doesn't matter.

Even if the officer's story is correct?

He still committed murder.

You cannot shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect.

Even then?

When the suspect stops and raises his hands?

You can't shoot.

Simple as that.

Yep, can't claim self defense if the subject is fleeing. That's common sense.

 

[FireFly]

Watching coverage yesterday, on CNN they had alledged eye-witnesses to events from the first shots onward. Sitting beside what I assumed was her lawyer, a young woman described what she saw. I noticed that while her interpretation of what she saw is open to cross-examination (are you sure you saw what you saw?) what isn't in dispute is the subject who got shot was inside the officer's vehicle struggling with the officer. That would seem to corroborate the officer's description of being assaulted and the subject going for his weapon.

The eye-witnesses' description confirms the officer and subject had some sort of physical altercation at the vehicle. What she goes on to describe is the actual shooting. But whether what she was seeing was a racist officer murdering a subject or responding to the subject's assault and grab for his weapon she couldn't know. Understandably the actual shooting will be most prominent in her recollection.

I'm believing the officer's account more and more with her testimony.

The key is that all 3 witness say both of Michael Browns hands were outside the vehicle when the first shot was fired. Plus Brown was executed with both hands in the air.

That doesn't enter into it procedurally, or legally. Once lethal force is justified and the decision you have to fire is made that's it. Doesn't matter if they try getting away or seem to be surrendering, they're a life-threatening threat to both the officer and the public. If not face down on the ground pretty darn quick we put you on the ground with our sidearms.

It is not legal unless Brown committed a felony before he resisted arrest & supposedly tried to grab the officers gun. The witness all say Brown was not in the vehicle trying to get the gun. They saw both hands outside the vehicle as he was trying to get away from the officer who was trying to pull him inside.

It could be argued in court that the officer tried to pull him inside in an attempt to claim Brown was going after his gun.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As I was coming around, I heard the tires squeaking on the truck, and as I get closer, I see them tussling through the window. The kid was pulling off and the cop was pulling in,” Mitchell said

I took it to mean that the cop was inside, the kid was outside, and they were tussling through the window. That agrees with other witness statements.

It seems to support the other witness saying Brown was trying to get out and the officer was pulling him back in

Only supports a physical altercation at the vehicle. Who was pulling/pushing is gonna be different depending on the witness and any agenda they may have.

Press coverage is portraying it like the officer had the guy kneeling down and shot him in the back of the head execution style. Haven't been focusing on the actual confrontation as yet. This testimony though confirms the officer's account that a struggle in the vehicle occured that directly led to the officer's belief lethal force was justified.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The key is that all 3 witness say both of Michael Browns hands were outside the vehicle when the first shot was fired. Plus Brown was executed with both hands in the air.

That doesn't enter into it procedurally, or legally. Once lethal force is justified and the decision you have to fire is made that's it. Doesn't matter if they try getting away or seem to be surrendering, they're a life-threatening threat to both the officer and the public. If not face down on the ground pretty darn quick we put you on the ground with our sidearms.

It is not legal unless Brown committed a felony before he resisted arrest & supposedly tried to grab the officers gun. The witness all say Brown was not in the vehicle trying to get the gun. They saw both hands outside the vehicle as he was trying to get away from the officer who was trying to pull him inside.

It could be argued in court that the officer tried to pull him inside in an attempt to claim Brown was going after his gun.

Hear O'Israel, this is the law (heh)


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

[Assaulting a police officer and/or going for their weapon is a felony]

(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.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-1-79

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Watching coverage yesterday, on CNN they had alledged eye-witnesses to events from the first shots onward. Sitting beside what I assumed was her lawyer, a young woman described what she saw. I noticed that while her interpretation of what she saw is open to cross-examination (are you sure you saw what you saw?) what isn't in dispute is the subject who got shot was inside the officer's vehicle struggling with the officer. That would seem to corroborate the officer's description of being assaulted and the subject going for his weapon.

The eye-witnesses' description confirms the officer and subject had some sort of physical altercation at the vehicle. What she goes on to describe is the actual shooting. But whether what she was seeing was a racist officer murdering a subject or responding to the subject's assault and grab for his weapon she couldn't know. Understandably the actual shooting will be most prominent in her recollection.

I'm believing the officer's account more and more with her testimony.

If you are talking about Tiffany Mitchell, she didn't say the kid was in the vehicle.

Here's her interview.

Another witness to Brown shooting comes forward; video shows graphic scene | KMOV.com St. Louis

As I was coming around, I heard the tires squeaking on the truck, and as I get closer, I see them tussling through the window. The kid was pulling off and the cop was pulling in,” Mitchell said

Whats your point?

 

[Sallow]

I took it to mean that the cop was inside, the kid was outside, and they were tussling through the window. That agrees with other witness statements.

It seems to support the other witness saying Brown was trying to get out and the officer was pulling him back in

Only supports a physical altercation at the vehicle. Who was pulling/pushing is gonna be different depending on the witness and any agenda they may have.

Press coverage is portraying it like the officer had the guy kneeling down and shot him in the back of the head execution style. Haven't been focusing on the actual confrontation as yet. This testimony though confirms the officer's account that a struggle in the vehicle occured that directly led to the officer's belief lethal force was justified.

Well no..it doesn't.

And one doesn't have to be a crime expert to understand the clusterfuck this actually is..

 

[rightwinger]

If you are talking about Tiffany Mitchell, she didn't say the kid was in the vehicle.

Here's her interview.

Another witness to Brown shooting comes forward; video shows graphic scene | KMOV.com St. Louis

As I was coming around, I heard the tires squeaking on the truck, and as I get closer, I see them tussling through the window. The kid was pulling off and the cop was pulling in,” Mitchell said

Whats your point?

The point references Browns intent

Witnesses say it was the cop who pulled Brown into the car window not Brown lunging into the window to try to take the cops gun. The witness said the cop grabbed Brown by the throat and pulled him in the window and Brown was struggling to pull back

All police shootings have internal investigations. The cop will have to defend:
Why he stopped Brown in the first place
Why he would have pulled Brown into his car
What happened in the struggle to make him fire his weapon
Why he fired at a fleeing suspect once he had control of his gun
Why he fired at a man with his hands up

 

[KissMy]

That doesn't enter into it procedurally, or legally. Once lethal force is justified and the decision you have to fire is made that's it. Doesn't matter if they try getting away or seem to be surrendering, they're a life-threatening threat to both the officer and the public. If not face down on the ground pretty darn quick we put you on the ground with our sidearms.

It is not legal unless Brown committed a felony before he resisted arrest & supposedly tried to grab the officers gun. The witness all say Brown was not in the vehicle trying to get the gun. They saw both hands outside the vehicle as he was trying to get away from the officer who was trying to pull him inside.

It could be argued in court that the officer tried to pull him inside in an attempt to claim Brown was going after his gun.

Hear O'Israel, this is the law (heh)


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

[Assaulting a police officer and/or going for their weapon is a felony]

(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.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-1-79

That ain't going to cut it with the witness statements. Unless the dead mans DNA is on the gun, holster or inside the car. Like FireFly said, it will still look like the officer tried to pull a non-felon into the vehicle in an attempt to claim he went for his gun.

The officer has a swollen face, but it could have been from the door. Unless Brown's DNA in found on his face it will not be good for the officer.

Brown committing Jay Walking was not a felony so resisting arrest does not justify lethal force.

 

[rightwinger]

It is not legal unless Brown committed a felony before he resisted arrest & supposedly tried to grab the officers gun. The witness all say Brown was not in the vehicle trying to get the gun. They saw both hands outside the vehicle as he was trying to get away from the officer who was trying to pull him inside.

It could be argued in court that the officer tried to pull him inside in an attempt to claim Brown was going after his gun.

Hear O'Israel, this is the law (heh)


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

[Assaulting a police officer and/or going for their weapon is a felony]

(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.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-1-79

That ain't going to cut it with the witness statements. Unless the dead mans DNA is on the gun, holster or inside the car. Like FireFly said, it will still look like the officer tried to pull a non-felon into the vehicle in an attempt to claim he went for his gun.

I can't envision any scenario where a cop would be justified to pull a suspect into his car

 

[Mr. H.]

Good luck seating a local jury.

A little too early for a jury. First there needs to be an indictment and then an arrest. Or are you just throwing out the judicial process because it makes you feel good?

 

[rightwinger]

Police report detailing Brown and Johnson stealing cigars from a convenience store

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/08/15/ferguson-police-report.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Watching coverage yesterday, on CNN they had alledged eye-witnesses to events from the first shots onward. Sitting beside what I assumed was her lawyer, a young woman described what she saw. I noticed that while her interpretation of what she saw is open to cross-examination (are you sure you saw what you saw?) what isn't in dispute is the subject who got shot was inside the officer's vehicle struggling with the officer. That would seem to corroborate the officer's description of being assaulted and the subject going for his weapon.

The eye-witnesses' description confirms the officer and subject had some sort of physical altercation at the vehicle. What she goes on to describe is the actual shooting. But whether what she was seeing was a racist officer murdering a subject or responding to the subject's assault and grab for his weapon she couldn't know. Understandably the actual shooting will be most prominent in her recollection.

I'm believing the officer's account more and more with her testimony.

She also said Brown body-flinched after the cop fired the first bullet. Brown then turned with his hands up and the cop then fired 2-3 more times hitting him in the head and chest.

Explain that. All witnesses said Brown had his hands up in the air when the cop then proceeded to murder him.

You need to rewind the tape and watch/isten again.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

This is the ******* problem. Our local police have turned into modern-day brownshirts:

These assholes are in stand-down at the RNC convention in Tampa, Florida 2012.

If anyone remembers correctly, absolutely no riots or protests to address, and yet this is what ordinary citizens have to put up with.

 

[KissMy]

Strong Arm Robbery is a felony in Missouri. That does justify police shooting a fleeing suspect especially when the officer is assaulted while trying to apprehend the suspect. Michael Brown assaulted 2 people in 13 minutes. He was a threat to the public & the officer who shot him. It was a legal shooting.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Strong Arm Robbery is a felony in Missouri. That does justify police shooting a fleeing suspect especially when the officer is assaulted while trying to apprehend the suspect.

It's not what happened by the car that is important, rather what happened when the kid said "nicht schießen" and then the martial law bullshit that followed by the unprofessional MO police force hellbent on playing soldier.