I don't think that's the story . . . I think that everyone agrees that when the shots were fired from the area of the cruiser that Brown was facing the cruiser. The dispute is primarily whether he was standing still, walking towards, running towards, or as the DA repeatedly put it "charging" the officer.
Maybe.
Yep.
The bold doesn't necessarily require shooting.
Quite true. Does his alleged refusal to get down justify killing him? (Talking about morality more than legality in this instance.)
I don't doubt that he can cover that distance but I do question the immediacy of the threat.
Questioning the officers response is entirely appropriate. I'm sure you'll agree if you stop and think about that a bit more.
We are taught as officers that you shoot to stop the threat, simple as that, if the threat is still a threat you keep shooting until it isn't a threat, they either give up or die. This isn't the movies, people don't die from one single gun shot wound immediately, except for a central nervous system shot, head shot. Officer Wilson said he couldn't get to his baton or flashlight and didn't want to use his pepper spray as often times that comes back into the officers eyes, blinding them. The last tool at his disposal was his weapon, Brown is still "attempting to disarm a peace officer" by grabbing said gun which is a felony in Missouri. Doesn't matter if it's in the holster or not, attempting to disarm a police officer immediately gives the officer discretion to use deadly force. Why? Because a reasonable person in like circumstances, which officers are judged upon when using force, can articulate that they were in fear for their life or the life of another.
For how long?
No, there is no maybe, he has red marks to the back of his head and what appears to be a fat lip on his right side. Witnesses said a struggle occurred inside or at the vehicle. I agree the bold doesn't necessarily require a shooting, but regardless, he has to make an arrest. Officer/subject size factor, whether anyone wants to like it or not, is a deciding factor on what level of force to use. 6'4" 300 lbs is quite the task for one officer to take on and looking at Wilson, I don't know his size, he doesn't appear to be a very big officer. I'm not saying that completely justifies me shooting someone based on that alone, but you have to meet their level of force if not take your level of force above their level of force to be successful in your arrest. So we can agree that it doesn't necessarily require a shooting, but it depends on the situation.
If he's continuing to charge the officer, after assaulting this officer, and attempting to disarm this officer, he may not "deserve" to die, but I think it can be argued it's justifiable to use deadly force. Not saying I would necessarily do that, but I wasn't there and not wrapped up in the encounter.
I might be confused with my comment, but you don't indict someone because you fear how the citizens will respond. I'm not saying that a trial may have not cleared things up some in the long run, but it could also provide us with no further answers.
Depends really, does Tennessee v Garner fall into this discussion? I don't have the answer to that, that would be something the court would have to consider. He attempted to disarm a police officer according to testimony from Wilson. This is a felony is Missouri so does the "fleeing felon rule" apply in this situation? Again, I don't know for sure, just putting that out there for discussion. I think both sides could argue for or against that honestly. Can the officer articulate that he was in fear for someone else's life because if Brown's willing to assault an officer, attempt to take his weapon, and flee, what else is he capable of?
