Re: Michael Brown

[tabibito]

The officer was fine and was filmed casually walking through the crime scene long after the event. He could certainly have filed an incident report as is required

Nope - the officer's behaviour was symptomatic of shock. It is something that I have seen often enough to identify it.

[JimL]

You are still avoiding the point. You said he only made this claim two weeks after the incident. I proved that this was his story from the very beginning. Why not concede the point? If you try to avoid or cloud the issue, it just makes it look like you cannot admit the obvious.

He didn't make the claim at all, as far as we know, since he never filed an incident report. And if he did make the claim to the investigating officers, then there is no excuse for his not filing an incident report. That is a cover up, pure and simple. If it is not in writing, he and they can always deny exactly was was said or meant if evidence to the contrary turns up.

The issue was about the law, not the facts of the case or evidence to support the facts. It seems you are just afraid to admit you made a mistake about the law.

The law as i said is ambiguous, the facts of the case and the evidence will determine whether the law justifies his actions.

[Cow Poke]

Exagerating again to support your agenda.

Oh, the HUGE IRON E!

Who said they were gang members? Brown was about to begin his first year of college.

He had just robbed a store, Jimmy, and you may be exagerating [sic] a bit, cause Brown was signed up for trade school.

Oh, and there's this....

brown3.jpg


ETA: I had to delete some of these photos because, besides flashing gang signs, there were other.. um... digital communications.

[robrecht]

He didn't make the claim at all, as far as we know, since he never filed an incident report. And if he did make the claim to the investigating officers, then there is no excuse for his not filing an incident report. That is a cover up, pure and simple. If it is not in writing, he and they can always deny exactly was was said or meant if evidence to the contrary turns up.

What is your evidence that he did not file a report?

The law as i said is ambiguous, the facts of the case and the evidence will determine whether the law justifies his actions.

Of course the law needs to be applied judiciously, but you cited the law incompletely, whereas I gave you the actual text of the supreme court decision, which includes an additional condition that you left out.

[Cow Poke]

What is your evidence that he did not file a report?

EGGzackly.... he may or may NOT have filed a report, but the LACK of such report in the public domain is NOT proof that he did not.

[Cow Poke]

Statement from the Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc. (It's a trade school, Jimmy)

Source: Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc

“Vatterott College has been part of the Ferguson community since the 1970s and we share in the community’s grief over this young man’s death and the circumstances surrounding it. As a matter of policy, we do not disclose the enrollment status of current students or those who may have plans to attend Vatterott College. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Michael Brown’s family and the Ferguson community during this difficult time.”

– Pamela Bell, CEO & President
Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

Statement from the Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc. (It's a trade school, Jimmy)

Source: Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc

“Vatterott College has been part of the Ferguson community since the 1970s and we share in the community’s grief over this young man’s death and the circumstances surrounding it. As a matter of policy, we do not disclose the enrollment status of current students or those who may have plans to attend Vatterott College. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Michael Brown’s family and the Ferguson community during this difficult time.”

– Pamela Bell, CEO & President
Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc.

© Copyright Original Source

In the statement you cite here, they refer to themselves as Vatterott College, but whether or not Michael Brown was pursuing a trade or an advanced degree in particle physics is completely irrelevant.

[JimL]

What is your evidence that he did not file a report?

Because even the incident report that was released 10 days after the fact was not a report of what went down at the scene. It merely gave the name of the victim and officer etc. but no details. That is not an incident report.

Of course the law needs to be applied judiciously, but you cited the law incompletely, whereas I gave you the actual text of the supreme court decision, which includes an additional condition that you left out.

Because you are reading to literally into this one specific law. The officer, just because he had a legal right to use deadly force when he felt himself to be in imminent danger, assault on an officer being a felony, does not mean that he can still use deadly force when he is no longer in imminent danger. According to many eyewitnesses, he was no longer in imminent danger, and the victim was surrendering. To continue to shoot to kill at that point is a homicide.

[robrecht]

Because even the incident report that was released 10 days after the fact was not a report of what went down at the scene. It merely gave the name of the victim and officer etc. but no details. That is not an incident report.

Please link to the report that you are speaking of. You may not be aware of the second one that was released subsequently.

Because you are reading to literally into this one specific law. The officer, just because he had a legal right to use deadly force when he felt himself to be in imminent danger, assault on an officer being a felony, does not mean that he can still use deadly force when he is no longer in imminent danger. According to many eyewitnesses, he was no longer in imminent danger, and the victim was surrendering. To continue to shoot to kill at that point is a homicide.

The law does not merely say what you say it does here. You are only alluding to part of the law. I am not discussing with you witness accounts, but what the law actually says. I am not reading it too literally, but giving you the actual text, which includes conditions that you are still ignoring.

[Sparko]

Why is everyone even bothering with Jimmy? He is a mouth-foaming libtard.

The only way he would ever admit that the officer even might be justified is if Brown was a Republican and the Officer was a Democrat.

[JimL]

Please link to the report that you are speaking of. You may not be aware of the second one that was released subsequently.

There were two reports, one from the feruson PD and one from the County, niether of which were released at the time and neither of which supplied details. If you are aware of an incident report detailing the events including witness accounts at the scene, please provide athe link.

The law does not merely say what you say it does here. You are only alluding to part of the law. I am not discussing with you witness accounts, but what the law actually says. I am not reading it too literally, but giving you the actual text, which includes conditions that you are still ignoring.

Well what i am saying is that there is a difference of opinion as to exactly what this law allows and that there are other laws that make it more clear as to the justification of deadly force, and a fleeing felon in and of itself is not justification for the use of deadly force. Other than that, this is not what this case will rest upon so it is only incidental. The fact that Brown was 20 to 30 feet away from the officer with his hands in the air, which is what the eyewitnesses are all in agreement on, is all that matters, and so whether he was considered to have committed a felony or not, to use deadly force at that point is a homicide.

[Psychic Missile]

Such countries are becoming fewer, and they tend to have fewer armed criminals trotting around, usually as a result of laws that make guns difficult to procure. Australian police officers weren't armed until the 1970s, except for detectives (they carried Browning .22 pistols). England has started to shift toward arming police officers of late. In both cases, it has been a response to more frequent occurrences of armed (not necessarily with firearms) criminals.

My argument is that armed police should use the same tactics unarmed police use when dealing with unarmed assailants. I don't see how what you said is relevant.

If you don't want to sound like an idiot when you do make the arguments, experience is actually a pretty good way to ascertain the evidence and make a decent case for why your argument is valid. Let me give you an example, suppose you have a plug in your house that is putting out 60 VAC that is suppose to put out 110 VAC. What likely is the cause? I could make a pretty educated guess what it is and figure it out because I have experience in electrical work, do you have experience in electrical work? If you don't, how can you tell what the problem is?

I wouldn't have enough evidence to make an assessment, which isn't the case when it comes to police dealing with unarmed people.

And that somehow proves my argument is invalid because.... you have made silly statements that are so insanely stupid, are you surprised that somebody calls you an idiot for making these statements? Michael Brown was 11 inches taller than me and is over double my weight. What chance do you suppose I would have in a physical altercation with him, without some sort of weapon for defense (such as a gun)? Not a lot. In the wild west days, there was a saying that said something like, "God created man and Samuel Colt made them equal." because the gun is the great equalizer. It virtually negates physical strength and gives power to those who might not have it otherwise. Trust me, a guy who is over 6 feet tall and is built like a linebacker could do a lot of damage to a person.

Leaving aside the fact that these is no evidence that Brown was attacking anyone, you could use a taser or pepper spray.

To a degree they are, but that is not what you said at all, you said:

"That idea exists because a police officer should not have their life threatened by an unarmed person. Their training and tools should be more than adequate."

Which it seems you didn't think your statement out thoroughly and now are trying to back peddle out of your clearly dumb statement. It is totally idiotic to presume that an police officer should not have their life threatened by an unarmed person. People, who are unarmed, harm lots of people every year. It is possible to kill somebody with your fist and the FBI will tell you that too. There's a reason police are armed.

That doesn't seem to be a problem for the unarmed police in other countries, so it looks like our police are inferior. We should remedy that.

And how well do you suppose such a thing would work here in the US? I think you're forgetting that there's quite a few differences between the US and other countries. Among those differences, is less of a possibility of running into somebody with such a height and weight advantage due to their relatively homogenous population.

I don't know about that. I think the UK is relatively equal to us in that regard.

So I'm suppose to wait until he physically threatens me or my family before I could take action? Do me a favor, do not run for public office or try to pass your insanity into public law. If they didn't want to deal with the possibility of getting shot, they shouldn't of been where they were not invited to start with.

Not necessarily. If it looks like a physical threat is imminent, I take no issue either. I do take issue with assuming that anyone trespassing on your property wants to kill you. Escalating the situation by shooting at someone who otherwise wouldn't harm you could increase the danger to yourself and your family. Threat assessment is an important skill and should be a vital for gun owners.

I don't think I said that.

I asked "Why do you think it is justifiable for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person?" You replied "Because it often is." I asked "Is that the extent of your opinion, or is there a reason for it?" You replied "Law." It is therefore justifiable for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person because of the law, according to you. Something is right because the law says it is.

If you think that I would not shoot someone who was attacking me you are a fool. Self defense means I can defend myself. If someone is attacking you have no way to know how far they will carry it.

Are you a police officer?

"How do you know if someone breaking into your home is willing to harm you and not just after your possessions? We can't know what a criminal is capable of, so there's no use" taking a chance. Be ready to shoot if you need to.

I agree.

I will assume that you are not an idiot and shot off this response without thinking.

Not at all. You think a person deserves to die if they steal something from you. I want to know more about this horrible perspective.

I think you mean "always" should be a last resort to shoot an unarmed person. And it is. Police don't just draw and shoot someone unless they think their lives or others are in danger. At least that is how a good officer acts. Whether the assailant is armed or not, he can still pose a danger to the officer or others. I mentioned in this thread how my brother almost died as a cop when an unarmed man shattered his jaw while he was breaking up a domestic dispute. My brother was lucky his partner was there and the guy ran off before he finished the job.

Wow, that's a significant typo! Sorry! I did mean "always".

I assume your brother was carrying a gun at the time, in which case even if I did argue that a police officer should be willing to use a gun against a single unarmed assailant, it wouldn't have mattered in this situation.

exactly, you CAN'T know if he is willing to harm you or not. But he is obviously a criminal and he obviously broke into your house, and he obviously doesn't want to get caught. Weight that against your own safety and that of your family and the prudent choice is to defend your life with deadly force.

If your life isn't in danger you can't defend it. There are lots of important facts to consider. Does the area you live have a problem with armed criminals? Is your home two storied? Is your family in the house? If they are, are they with you or near you? Is the criminal on a separate floor? Is the criminal alone? Do you have a security system? Can you tell if they are armed? Shooting at a thief without assessing how much of a threat they are to you isn't just possibly murderous (if not by law, by my standards) but threatening to your life and your family's life.

[Cow Poke]

In the statement you cite here, they refer to themselves as Vatterott College, but whether or not Michael Brown was pursuing a trade or an advanced degree in particle physics is completely irrelevant.

I actually agree. In FACT, the notion that he was "signed up" for college itself is totally irrelevant.

[Cow Poke]

Because you are reading to literally into this one specific law. The officer, just because he had a legal right to use deadly force when he felt himself to be in imminent danger,

Good of you to finally admit that!

assault on an officer being a felony, does not mean that he can still use deadly force when he is no longer in imminent danger. According to many eyewitnesses, he was no longer in imminent danger, and the victim was surrendering. To continue to shoot to kill at that point is a homicide.

You really don't understand basic fundamentals of law -- which is why YOU would have had all those Bundy supporters "in jail right now"!

[robrecht]

There were two reports, one from the feruson PD and one from the County, niether of which were released at the time and neither of which supplied details. If you are aware of an incident report detailing the events including witness accounts at the scene, please provide athe link.

The second one that was released was "heavily redacted" so we cannot say how much detail or what details were included.

Well what i am saying is that there is a difference of opinion as to exactly what this law allows and that there are other laws that make it more clear as to the justification of deadly force, and a fleeing felon in and of itself is not justification for the use of deadly force. Other than that, this is not what this case will rest upon so it is only incidental. The fact that Brown was 20 to 30 feet away from the officer with his hands in the air, which is what the eyewitnesses are all in agreement on, is all that matters, and so whether he was considered to have committed a felony or not, to use deadly force at that point is a homicide.

I know of no one here who ever said that a fleeing felon in and of itself is justification for the use of deadly force. Certainly, I never said that so this sounds like a bit of a strawman.