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

[Harry Dresden]

It just seems the local police is clueless in dealing with the community

They see the community outraged at what they saw as a senseless unprovoked killing. Rather than release information as to why Brown was stopped and what happened at the scene they clammed up and sent SWAT teams to take on the protesters

You don't know what they were doing at first, but I'd bet they were trying to gather evidence, analyze the facts and make a case. There is no necessity during a preliminary investigation, to release hearsay and unsubstantiated "facts"

There was, however, compelling necessity to quell the violence that erupted when some, with fewer fact than the authorities had, began to riot and burn.

What we do know is that the Ferguson Police allowed a volatile situation get out of hand

Refusing to provide information only made the situation worse. The strong armed response to protesters and the press only escallated the situation

i have to agree with that.....

 

[ducks102]

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.

That's not the threshold.

When a criminal assaults a store manager during the commission of a theft, THEN assaults a police officer when he is apprehended, THEN tries to seize the officers firearm, he becomes a danger to officers and the public.

Tennessee v Garner - When can officers use deadly force to subdue a fleeing unarmed subject?

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

a person already shot and is 35 feet does not pose a threat haha lol

come on dude, use you head

 

[Jackson]

Yes they let the situation get out of hand by not reacting quickly enough and arresting violent protestors, but they did not incite a riot. They did not burn and loot.

The left can not accept responsibility for anything, can they?

IF THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY IS TRUE, the cops should have arrested the other guy AT THE TIME of the shooting and let it be known that they were both suspects in a violent robbery. Then there would have been no four days of rioting.

Surely you can see that Ernie.

When you want Black people dead there is not much you can see but red.

What I see Asclepias, is for Michael Brown to be innocent when he was most likely not. Tell me honestly, what would you say to your son if he was about to rip off a convenient store?

 

[rightwinger]

What we do know is that the Ferguson Police allowed a volatile situation get out of hand

Refusing to provide information only made the situation worse. The strong armed response to protesters and the press only escallated the situation

Yes they let the situation get out of hand by not reacting quickly enough and arresting violent protestors, but they did not incite a riot. They did not burn and loot.

The left can not accept responsibility for anything, can they?

IF THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY IS TRUE, the cops should have arrested the other guy AT THE TIME of the shooting and let it be known that they were both suspects in a violent robbery. Then there would have been no four days of rioting.

Surely you can see that Ernie.

At the time of the riots it was thought to be a "walking while black" stop. If the cops had not been so close hold on information relevant to the stop, they could have prevented much of the violence

Their SWAT team tactics only made matters worse

 

[Sallow]

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.

That's not the threshold.

When a criminal assaults a store manager during the commission of a theft, THEN assaults a police officer when he is apprehended, THEN tries to seize the officers firearm, he becomes a danger to officers and the public.

Tennessee v Garner - When can officers use deadly force to subdue a fleeing unarmed subject?

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Do you even read these things?

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
<snip>
Justice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit's determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion.

The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

White examined the common law rule on this matter and its rationale. At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon. At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were punishable by death, and the difference between felonies and misdemeanors was relatively large. In modern American law, neither of these circumstances existed. Furthermore, the common law rule developed at a time before modern firearms, and most law enforcement officers did not carry handguns. The context in which the common law rule evolved was no longer valid. White further noted that many jurisdictions had already done away with it, and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public.

On the basis of the facts found by the district court, Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous. White ordered the case to be remanded for determination of the liability of the other defendants.
Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Officer lost.

 

[Asclepias]

IF THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY IS TRUE, the cops should have arrested the other guy AT THE TIME of the shooting and let it be known that they were both suspects in a violent robbery. Then there would have been no four days of rioting.

Surely you can see that Ernie.

When you want Black people dead there is not much you can see but red.

What I see Asclepias, is for Michael Brown to be innocent when he was most likely not. Tell me honestly, what would you say to your son if he was about to rip off a convenient store?

I wouldn't say much. I'd kick his ass. No reason for stealing other peoples hard earned stuff. We still dont know if thats what happened though. Why havent they released the video showing him stealing the cigars?

 

[Ernie S.]

Limbaugh?

I'll think I'll get a more objective opinion first.

Like Al Sharpton?

Right.....

I dont watch Al much but he would be more believable than Rush.

Credibility IS subjective, isn't it?

Duke Lacrosse
Twanya Brawley
Yankle Rosenbaum
Freddie Fashion Mart

 

[Jackson]

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.

That's not the threshold.

When a criminal assaults a store manager during the commission of a theft, THEN assaults a police officer when he is apprehended, THEN tries to seize the officers firearm, he becomes a danger to officers and the public.

Tennessee v Garner - When can officers use deadly force to subdue a fleeing unarmed subject?

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

a person already shot and is 35 feet does not pose a threat haha lol

come on dude, use you head

A person who just assaulted a cop after robbing a store and started running away could likely wind up dead.

 

[Missourian]

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.

That's not the threshold.

When a criminal assaults a store manager during the commission of a theft, THEN assaults a police officer when he is apprehended, THEN tries to seize the officers firearm, he becomes a danger to officers and the public.

Tennessee v Garner - When can officers use deadly force to subdue a fleeing unarmed subject?

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Do you even read these things?

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
<snip>
Justice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit's determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion.

The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

White examined the common law rule on this matter and its rationale. At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon. At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were punishable by death, and the difference between felonies and misdemeanors was relatively large. In modern American law, neither of these circumstances existed. Furthermore, the common law rule developed at a time before modern firearms, and most law enforcement officers did not carry handguns. The context in which the common law rule evolved was no longer valid. White further noted that many jurisdictions had already done away with it, and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public.

On the basis of the facts found by the district court, Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous. White ordered the case to be remanded for determination of the liability of the other defendants.
Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Officer lost.

Go back and read it again.

The officer lost because the suspect was only suspected of a non-violent crime, burglary.

The court threw out the Fleeing Felon Rule, and replaced it with the one I quoted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gramps has said that he's an ex-con. One would think he'd know better.

Oh wait - its Gramps. Known for jumping the gun and having no information or proof.

like you are not guilty of doing the same thing......

Yeah...........but no. There is a CLEAR difference between right and left here when it comes to posting without waiting for facts. USMB nutters do this as a matter of daily routine. Our liberals are much more likely to reserve judgement until some time has passed and some details have been confirmed.

True.

Liberals for the most part are withholding judgement on the issue until the facts are fully known and an investigation concluded.

Most conservatives, however, are seeking to demonize Brown in a reprehensible effort to ‘justify’ his killing absent all the facts and a final determination of an investigation.

The disdain most on the right have for facts and objective, documented evidence that conflict with their dogma and subjective world-view is well-established and infamous – posts by conservatives in this and other threads on the same topic are proof of that.

 

[Asclepias]

Like Al Sharpton?

Right.....

I dont watch Al much but he would be more believable than Rush.

Credibility IS subjective, isn't it?

Duke Lacrosse
Twanya Brawley
Yankle Rosenbaum
Freddie Fashion Mart

Yes it is. Thats why I would believe Al over Rush any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[Jackson]

When you want Black people dead there is not much you can see but red.

What I see Asclepias, is for Michael Brown to be innocent when he was most likely not. Tell me honestly, what would you say to your son if he was about to rip off a convenient store?

I wouldn't say much. I'd kick his ass. No reason for stealing other peoples hard earned stuff. We still dont know if thats what happened though. Why havent they released the video showing him stealing the cigars?

Yes they did. It's on tv. If the police stopped your son and told him to get on the sidewalk, would you tell him to run down the street?

 

[williepete]

I wouldn't say much. I'd kick his ass. No reason for stealing other peoples hard earned stuff.

Dad? Is that you?

 

[Missourian]

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.

That's not the threshold.

When a criminal assaults a store manager during the commission of a theft, THEN assaults a police officer when he is apprehended, THEN tries to seize the officers firearm, he becomes a danger to officers and the public.

Tennessee v Garner - When can officers use deadly force to subdue a fleeing unarmed subject?

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

a person already shot and is 35 feet does not pose a threat haha lol

come on dude, use you head

Doesn't matter if he was a MILE away.

An imminent threat is NOT required.

Police may use "deadly force to prevent escape".

 

[Ernie S.]

What we do know is that the Ferguson Police allowed a volatile situation get out of hand

Refusing to provide information only made the situation worse. The strong armed response to protesters and the press only escallated the situation

Yes they let the situation get out of hand by not reacting quickly enough and arresting violent protestors, but they did not incite a riot. They did not burn and loot.

The left can not accept responsibility for anything, can they?

IF THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY IS TRUE, the cops should have arrested the other guy AT THE TIME of the shooting and let it be known that they were both suspects in a violent robbery. Then there would have been no four days of rioting.

Surely you can see that Ernie.

At that point, they could only suspect that Johnson was Brown's accomplice at the Quick Mart. It usually is necessary to gather evidence before you make an arrest.

THEN shit got out of hand and police were otherwise occupied.

The riots are not the fault of the police. They can ONLY be blamed on the rioters themselves.

 

[Asclepias]

like you are not guilty of doing the same thing......

Yeah...........but no. There is a CLEAR difference between right and left here when it comes to posting without waiting for facts. USMB nutters do this as a matter of daily routine. Our liberals are much more likely to reserve judgement until some time has passed and some details have been confirmed.

True.

Liberals for the most part are withholding judgement on the issue until the facts are fully known and an investigation concluded.

Most conservatives, however, are seeking to demonize Brown in a reprehensible effort to ‘justify’ his killing absent all the facts and a final determination of an investigation.

The disdain most on the right have for facts and objective, documented evidence that conflict with their dogma and subjective world-view is well-established and infamous – posts by conservatives in this and other threads on the same topic are proof of that.

They even resorted to spreading fake pictures and claiming he was in the vice lords then that changed to the Bloods.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes they let the situation get out of hand by not reacting quickly enough and arresting violent protestors, but they did not incite a riot. They did not burn and loot.

The left can not accept responsibility for anything, can they?

IF THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY IS TRUE, the cops should have arrested the other guy AT THE TIME of the shooting and let it be known that they were both suspects in a violent robbery. Then there would have been no four days of rioting.

Surely you can see that Ernie.

When you want Black people dead there is not much you can see but red.

When you want free shit, any excuse will do. Fair is fair, right


Remember, fairness is subjective.

 

[Jackson]

Yes they let the situation get out of hand by not reacting quickly enough and arresting violent protestors, but they did not incite a riot. They did not burn and loot.

The left can not accept responsibility for anything, can they?

IF THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY IS TRUE, the cops should have arrested the other guy AT THE TIME of the shooting and let it be known that they were both suspects in a violent robbery. Then there would have been no four days of rioting.

Surely you can see that Ernie.

At that point, they could only suspect that Johnson was Brown's accomplice at the Quick Mart. It usually is necessary to gather evidence before you make an arrest.

THEN shit got out of hand and police were otherwise occupied.

The riots are not the fault of the police. They can ONLY be blamed on the rioters themselves.

You arrest suspects. You gather evidence for a trial.

 

[Ernie S.]

IF THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY IS TRUE, the cops should have arrested the other guy AT THE TIME of the shooting and let it be known that they were both suspects in a violent robbery. Then there would have been no four days of rioting.

Surely you can see that Ernie.

When you want Black people dead there is not much you can see but red.

What I see Asclepias, is for Michael Brown to be innocent when he was most likely not. Tell me honestly, what would you say to your son if he was about to rip off a convenient store?

Just a guess but:
Go ahead son! Those white devils owe us. If you get shot, we'll all party like it was Watts.

 

[R.C. Christian]

To the OP: We don't know if he did or not, and even if he did, a person already shot once with his hands in the air does not deserve an execution! I believe the eyewitnesses to that event. They've been consistent for the most part.