Police admit Michael Brown shot while running away

[JFK_USA]

Another idiot who can't read:

Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”

Republican racists don't care. They want black people dead for any reason.

 

[saveliberty]

Another idiot who can't read:

Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”

Republican racists don't care. They want black people dead for any reason.

This is the type of crap that makes me not care what the left calls me any more. I see a whole bunch of Black racists in Ferguson.

 

[protectionist]

Interesting part of this is that even if Wilson had shot Brown square in the back, while he was running away, that would be entirely LEGAL, and proper under US law. So rather than have a slew of posts in this thread, we could have just one saying "So What ?"

Why is that legal?

It isn't. He's full of shit. Even Ron Paul thinks so.

Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away

"""As noted previously, that case went before the Supreme Court a decade later, resulting in the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” This was a rejection of the “Any Felony Rule” under which officers in many states, including Tennessee, were authorized to use deadly force to stop a fleeing or resisting suspect."""

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away

FALSE! That is not what the court decided. YOU are full of shit. The court decided exactly what I said (in Post # 9) > it decided >> "An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat."

Missouri Statute 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.

Also :
While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

1. • Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
   • An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Brown fits the # 2 item here, to a T.

Garner vs. Tennessee (1985)

Graham vs. Conner (1989)

(some people have to be told twice)

 

[Rotagilla]

Interesting part of this is that even if Wilson had shot Brown square in the back, while he was running away, that would be entirely LEGAL, and proper under US law. So rather than have a slew of posts in this thread, we could have just one saying "So What ?"

Missouri Statute 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.

Also :
While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

1. Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
2. An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Brown fits the # 2 item here, to a T.

Garner vs. Tennessee (1985)

Graham vs. Conner (1989)

EXACTLY..I posted that several...MANY....times lately... No one pays attention...they will when the case is dropped and no charges filed, though.


It was a good, legal shoot. Good riddance.

 

[protectionist]

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she 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

Which, obvioulsy, was exactly the case with Michael Brown.

 

[protectionist]

8211 Police Admit Michael Brown Was Shot At While He Was Running Away

Ever since the autopsy of Michael Brown was made public, the racist right wing and Police State apologists have been crowing about how Brown was shot in the front and not in the back as he was fleeing the police. Eyewitnesses have stated, repeatedly, that Brown was shot in the back and then turned with his arms raised before being gunned down. Since the autopsy seems to contradict this, the racists and apologists have latched on to the report to declare that everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along. Brown was just another ****** “thug” that got what was coming to him.

But a little nugget of information seems to have slipped by the conversation: Officer Wilson did shoot at Brown as he was running away. Via The New York Times (by way of LGF):

As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials.

More at the link.

I'm sure it's like this in other places besides New Jersey, but here there's a thing called insulting an police officer. It doesn't take much, if anyone has ever been to New Jersey. But they get insulted over silly stuff. If the speed limit is 55 and you go 60, no problem. But if you go 65 then you're "insulting them".

Since the Ferguson P.D. is acting like a cat that just doesn't have enough sand in the litter box, I'm thinking that Michael Brown was immature enough to get into a physical altercation with Darren Wilson and Wilson got out of his car and tried to subdue him. That failing, he still had the gun in his hand and pointed it at Brown and Dorian Johnson.

Then I think that Brown and Johnson did what boys do when they get into trouble and they tried to run. Wilson was "insulted" by losing control and he snapped, and shot Brown.

Sounds like he winged him in the arm and then hit him 5 more times when the kid turned around. Shit like this happens in seconds, not minutes.

Anyone can snap, but a police officer is trained to handle irrational situations. At least they should be.

There is no evidence to show that Wilson, in any way, "snapped" (as you put it). Quite the contrary, there has been mounting evidence, over the past week, that Wilson acted properly, and legally.

 

[protectionist]

If I heard from the janitor interview right the cop fired a warning shot, Brown stopped, turned around and began closing on the cop then got shot up.

What I am thinking is,

-the cop may have been happy to shoot Brown after getting his face beat in.

-brown gave him the excuse by closing on him. If I REMEMBER the janitor did not say charged but we will see.

-brown should not have been wrestling with the cops. They say stop and you stop.

-That kids poor mother.

"getting his face beat in"

LOL

Here we go again. Just as we saw with gz/Travon, by the time this subject is done, the nutters will have this poor hero cop will have been permanent maimed because the giant monster career criminal Brown ripped his face off.

Or worse.

OTOH, if Michael Brown had been white and the cop black, it would be the other way around.

SMH

There is such a case, have you read about it? Why not?

HERE'S one of them. And it's a classic!

Hey Al Sharpton How About Protesting THIS Case US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[protectionist]

You RW racists can twist and shout all you want, I just posted what the cops said.

The racist crackers are crapping their pants , knowing the demographic shift is upon them and wondering if they will be treated as they treat the blacks and other non white minorities., So sit back and enjoy the show of their fear and paranoia as their desperation takes over

You mean like will the Whites start getting preferential special treatment in job hiring from Affirmative Action, as well as job promotions, college admissions, college financial aid, small business loans/grants. etc. You mean like the way they did a cover-up on Trayvon Martin's burglaries, because he was Black ? Fear ? Sounds more like something to throw a party for.

 

[Samson]

You RW racists can twist and shout all you want, I just posted what the cops said.

You tell me luddly. I've been consistent in current events rocking on all sorts over the top shit. You know like 200 armed agents, 9 helicopters, snipers to get some cows man.

**** off don't you understand whats going on here?

Luddy never really knows what's going on.

He cuts and pastes from partisan Left Blogs, then claims they are fact.

Typical.

 

[Paperman299]

I guess front is the new back according to Libs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/u...s-shot-at-least-6-times.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1

He was shot in the front....
Not in the back...
Running away.

The family's coroner reported at least one shot which could have hit Brown while his back was turned to Wilson, that being the wound on his forearm (jump to 18:50).



Of course, the NYT article at the heart of the OP reports police as claiming no one was (immediately?) hit by Wilson. Maybe Wilson missed with his first shot, but surprised or scared Brown into stopping. Johnson could have been mistaken, being at a distance from the event, or he could have been lying.

 

[Paperman299]

It isn't. He's full of shit. Even Ron Paul thinks so.

Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away

"""As noted previously, that case went before the Supreme Court a decade later, resulting in the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” This was a rejection of the “Any Felony Rule” under which officers in many states, including Tennessee, were authorized to use deadly force to stop a fleeing or resisting suspect."""

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away

FALSE! That is not what the court decided. YOU are full of shit. The court decided exactly what I said (in Post # 9) > it decided >> "An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat."

Missouri Statute 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.

Also :
While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

1. • Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
   • An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Brown fits the # 2 item here, to a T.

Garner vs. Tennessee (1985)

Graham vs. Conner (1989)

(some people have to be told twice)

Stealing a $45 box of cigars is not a felony. Brown would only be guilty of a violent felony if he actually assaulted the cop, and that is still in dispute.

 

[bucs90]

You CAN shoot someone running away, as the court case says.

Imagine....you're a cop. A call goes out that a white male, bald head, pink shirt, camo pants, with an AK47 is shooting up a school and 20 are shot.

YOu arrive, and see a white male, bald head, pink shirt, camo pants, with an AK47. And he sees you, then turns and runs towards another wing of the school.

You shooting him in the back? Of course you are. And court says you can.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals destroyed by facts in their own thread. The patronizing racist liberals.

A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler. A black a cop shot a white unarmed young man named Dillon Tyler.

 

[dannyboys]

8211 Police Admit Michael Brown Was Shot At While He Was Running Away

Ever since the autopsy of Michael Brown was made public, the racist right wing and Police State apologists have been crowing about how Brown was shot in the front and not in the back as he was fleeing the police. Eyewitnesses have stated, repeatedly, that Brown was shot in the back and then turned with his arms raised before being gunned down. Since the autopsy seems to contradict this, the racists and apologists have latched on to the report to declare that everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along. Brown was just another ****** “thug” that got what was coming to him.

But a little nugget of information seems to have slipped by the conversation: Officer Wilson did shoot at Brown as he was running away. Via The New York Times (by way of LGF):

As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials.

More at the link.

You're stupid and now you are on Permanent Ignore.

 

[dannyboys]

Another idiot who can't read:

Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”

Republican racists don't care. They want black people dead for any reason.

You're an idiot and you are now on Permanent Ignore.

 

[dannyboys]

It isn't. He's full of shit. Even Ron Paul thinks so.

Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away

"""As noted previously, that case went before the Supreme Court a decade later, resulting in the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” This was a rejection of the “Any Felony Rule” under which officers in many states, including Tennessee, were authorized to use deadly force to stop a fleeing or resisting suspect."""

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away

FALSE! That is not what the court decided. YOU are full of shit. The court decided exactly what I said (in Post # 9) > it decided >> "An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat."

Missouri Statute 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.

Also :
While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

1. • Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
   • An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Brown fits the # 2 item here, to a T.

Garner vs. Tennessee (1985)

Graham vs. Conner (1989)

(some people have to be told twice)

Stealing a $45 box of cigars is not a felony. Brown would only be guilty of a violent felony if he actually assaulted the cop, and that is still in dispute.

No one but stupid people are disputing that 'Big Mike' punched the cop.
Even 'Big Mike's' bum-boy Johnson has admitted the fact. Pretty hard not to when witnesses have come forward and sworn they saw 'Big Mike' punching Wilson.
You need to get up to speed or leave pal.
The GJ will see medical evidence that Wilson's eye socket was broken. When that happens the GJ will rule that no charges be brought against Wilson.
Then the ******* monkeys in Ferguson can go out and loot and burn down the rest of the shit hole.
Then they can figure out how to travel three miles and back to buy a can of watermelon juice.

 

[Misty]

If white cops are known for being trigger happy racists then why did this kid run? If he was innocent he would not have ran. If he feared the racist trigger happy cops why dud he run?

Everyone knows that if a cop stops you, you put your hands on your head and freeze. If the kid had done that he would be alive but instead he ran cuz he knew he had committed a crime.

 

[Paperman299]

It isn't. He's full of shit. Even Ron Paul thinks so.

Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away

"""As noted previously, that case went before the Supreme Court a decade later, resulting in the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” This was a rejection of the “Any Felony Rule” under which officers in many states, including Tennessee, were authorized to use deadly force to stop a fleeing or resisting suspect."""

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away

FALSE! That is not what the court decided. YOU are full of shit. The court decided exactly what I said (in Post # 9) > it decided >> "An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat."

Missouri Statute 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.

Also :
While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

1. • Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
   • An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Brown fits the # 2 item here, to a T.

Garner vs. Tennessee (1985)

Graham vs. Conner (1989)

(some people have to be told twice)

Stealing a $45 box of cigars is not a felony. Brown would only be guilty of a violent felony if he actually assaulted the cop, and that is still in dispute.

No one but stupid people are disputing that 'Big Mike' punched the cop.
Even 'Big Mike's' bum-boy Johnson has admitted the fact. Pretty hard not to when witnesses have come forward and sworn they saw 'Big Mike' punching Wilson.
You need to get up to speed or leave pal.
The GJ will see medical evidence that Wilson's eye socket was broken. When that happens the GJ will rule that no charges be brought against Wilson.
Then the ******* monkeys in Ferguson can go out and loot and burn down the rest of the shit hole.
Then they can figure out how to travel three miles and back to buy a can of watermelon juice.

Witnesses agree there was an altercation at the cop's car, but most did not catch the beginning of it. The only witness who has publicly made a statement on it that I've seen confirmed that Officer Wilson initiated the struggle by grabbing Brown by the throat and pulling him toward the car and Brown, naturally, resisted.

We do not actually know what Wilson's medical condition was.

And please keep ending your posts on the subject with your racist rants. Otherwise people might take something you say seriously.

 

[Toronado3800]

If I heard from the janitor interview right the cop fired a warning shot, Brown stopped, turned around and began closing on the cop then got shot up.

What I am thinking is,

-the cop may have been happy to shoot Brown after getting his face beat in.

-brown gave him the excuse by closing on him. If I REMEMBER the janitor did not say charged but we will see.

-brown should not have been wrestling with the cops. They say stop and you stop.

-That kids poor mother.

Was I too neutral in this one? The cop's side is there was a struggle and the kid was a threat. Brown's side he was separated at the time of the shooting and didn't deserve to be shot.

Either way the kid's poor mother lost her son and would not have if the boy had not been wrestling with a cop. Sorry for being sympathetic or using adjectives.

 

[Political Junky]

Interesting part of this is that even if Wilson had shot Brown square in the back, while he was running away, that would be entirely LEGAL, and proper under US law. So rather than have a slew of posts in this thread, we could have just one saying "So What ?"

Why is that legal?

It's not legal.