What's the biggest reason for Blacks not advancing
- Thread starter BigRedBuster
- Start date
carlfense
New member
From the surveillance stills and description it looks a lot more like a shoplifting than a robbery. Burglary doesn't fit at all.
But you aren't actually doing that . . . you're giving the officer a pass and saying that we need to wait for facts and then giving weight to someone being a suspect in a previous crime, which even IF he did commit that crime it cannot in any way justify the shooting.
I think they said that there are no in car videos. And yes, that does bother me.
The photos make it pretty obvious that the subject assaulted the employee in the course of his theft - how does that not elevate the crime from theft to robbery?
In any case, the point I was making regarding context didn't have anything to do with the use of force, just that earlier speculation that this came about because an officer decided to hassle a couple of black kids for walking in the road is now confirmed to be wrong. Not a huge development, but a significant one.
Even though I suspect the tape would end up being somewhat ambiguous, the fact that any active police car in the country doesn't have a dash cam blows my mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
StPaulHusker
Banned
Probably too expensive after spending their budget on tanks, grenade launchers, and combat ready tactical gear
tschu
Banned
Most are acquired not through their budget, but through special grants and through military surplus programs. I do not know how Ferguson acquired their equipment.
tschu
Banned
Yep. And I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that he's some deranged racist who was looking for trouble. Just a regular guy whose actions were quite questionable, for reasons that may include a race bias.
StPaulHusker
Banned
tschu
Banned
I knew the intent of your post. I'm making a side point. I know you've actively disagreed with me for whatever reason through the course of this thread but don't get so defensive
Last edited by a moderator:
StPaulHusker
Banned
Not getting defensive. And I think I only disagreed with one thing in here and that was the motive behind the looting and riots.
Very, very good write up by Vox on this today. They get into some of the potential legal issues likely to be raised, particularly the "fleeing felon rule," which strikes me as probably the officer's go-to defense in this case.
Edit, looking over the relevant statute under Missouri law, I think it's all going to come down to how well witness accounts of Brown's surrender attempt holds up:
An aside: I think that statute is far too broad when it comes to matters of life and death. I don't want to bury police officers in red tape over every decision, but there doesn't appear to be any sort of encouragement in that statute for deadly force to be a last resort, as it should be.
Edit, looking over the relevant statute under Missouri law, I think it's all going to come down to how well witness accounts of Brown's surrender attempt holds up:
Under this, whatever happened at the convenience store is completely irrelevant. Assuming that the case can be made that Brown assaulted the police officer (treated for a swollen face), that's the felony. Considering Brown's sheer size, it seems likely that the case can be made that the officer thought he wouldn't be able to take him into custody without shooting him. So legally, what this seems likely to come down to is whether Brown actually attempted to surrender, as some witnesses say, or whether he did not, as I presume the officer will say. I would think a good scene reconstruction should pretty well settle that.
An aside: I think that statute is far too broad when it comes to matters of life and death. I don't want to bury police officers in red tape over every decision, but there doesn't appear to be any sort of encouragement in that statute for deadly force to be a last resort, as it should be.
Last edited by a moderator:
BIGREDIOWAN
Mods
When you put hands on someone and assault them in the commission of a theft that most certainly enhances it to a robbery. A weapon doesn't need to be displayed, hands, fists, feet, etc will do in that type of situation.
I don't see a video or pictures of the officer shooting this kid without justification either. If I did I most certainly would say, "This doesn't look good, does it?" What I do see are pictures and video of a person who allegedly stole cigars and in the commission of that theft puts his hands on another person who was trying to stop him. Could other facts about that come out? Sure they could, but there isn't that type of evidence against the officer at this point and this individual wasn't just minding his own business walking down the street either. The officer had a justifiable reason to be there and at one point during this situation had a justifiable reason to use deadly force during the encounter in the squad car based on what we think we know. I'm not saying that the deadly force justification didn't go away IF Brown was just simply running away. I am saying what actions caused the deadly force justification to be justifiable when Brown did apparently try to get away from the officer? We don't know that, you're assuming that you know that, which makes you think the officer is wrong and your basing that decision off of news reports, not video of the incident. You are also basing your opinion off of what is, at least in my opinion, not a credible witness who was with Brown when he "robbed" the convenience store. At the very minimum that's joint criminal conduct or aiding and abeting and he could be charged with robbery as well depending on what his actions/role was in the situation.
Tennessee v. Garner 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 only to prevent escape 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. So if the suspect attempted to disarm this police officer based on what I've read about Missouri Law that is a felony. Obviously the argument will need to be made in court and the court will have to decide if that granted the officer deadly force until the arrest was made. If he's willing to beat a police officer and attempt to take his gun what else is he willing to do?
In Iowa we have a fund set up where we can get grants to get in-car cameras so we only pay a small amount for each in-car camera. Hell we have cameras now that are 360 degree cameras that can see around the car! No excuse to not have these cameras in these police cars. I'm sure Missouri has something similiar or they can at least get body cameras that are fairly inexpensive.
BIGREDIOWAN
Mods
Article just came out saying that the officer didn't know Brown was involved in the robbery when he came across Brown and his friend walking down the middle of the road blocking traffic. http://news.yahoo.com/turmoil-tear-gas-way-hope-ferguson-053336976.html So the robbery part of this whole accusation is just a secondary thing. It all comes down to Brown's interaction with the officer and the altercation that occured between he and the officer. The officer was treated for injuries to his head, which could justify deadly force in and of itself. What the officer says happened and what Brown's friend says happened are so completely different it should be obvious who's lying.
carlfense
New member
Not after Brown was leaving the scene.
If the description of where and when the shooting occurred is accurate it can't really be justified. If the available facts are accurate here is what we know in the supposed order that they happened.
1. Brown told to move off of road.
2. Struggle at or in the cruiser where officer says Brown tried to seize his gun. (Note that if this was where Brown was shot and killed it's an easily justifiable shooting.)
3. Brown leaves cruiser and is ~35 feet away heading the other direction. (Cannot be said to pose an imminent threat to the officer at this point . . . particularly because the officer is still in possession of the gun that he says Brown was trying to grab.)
4. Officer opens fire.
5. Brown turns with hands in air. (So say the witnesses. We haven't heard from the officer . . . although the PD sure didn't have any problem releasing the shoplifting video . . . hmmmmm.)
6. Officer continues to fire.
There was a point where the shooting would have been justified. That moment came and went.
carlfense
New member
BRI, what do you make of the Ferguson PDs choice to release the information about the convenience store theft?
If the officer who shot Brown didn't even know that Brown was a suspect I can't see any reason why that should be relevant/released other than to try to paint the dead kid in a bad light. What am I missing?
Also, I've never seen a police report that doesn't have an officer's name attached to it. Not to mention the fact that the unattributed report was leaked to the media?!
That department needs to be gutted. Start at the top and work down. Shameful sh!t.
If the officer who shot Brown didn't even know that Brown was a suspect I can't see any reason why that should be relevant/released other than to try to paint the dead kid in a bad light. What am I missing?
Also, I've never seen a police report that doesn't have an officer's name attached to it. Not to mention the fact that the unattributed report was leaked to the media?!
That department needs to be gutted. Start at the top and work down. Shameful sh!t.
Not according to Missouri law
Like I said before, I think that statute gives the police far too much discretion in a situation like this, but it is what will be applied. The entire case against the officer will stand or fall on your #5.